People ‘Up to Date’ With COVID-19 Vaccines More Likely to Be Infected: Study

epoch times ^ | 17 June A.D. 2023 | Zachery Steiber

[catnipman]

the cleveland clinic study concluded that the reason unvaxed and non-up-to-date-vaxed had lower infection rates was primarily because those folks had better immunity from having acquired natural infection as a result of NOT being faxed or fully vaxed ...

in effect, as long as one CONTINUES to take fake vax doses, one is less likely to acquire the much more powerful immunity acquired from natural infection ...

IOW, one becomes dependent upon taking the fake fax for a lifetime to avoid the powerful immunity provided by natural infection ...

of course, a MAJOR downside of such a lifetime of fake vaxing is all of the many possible morbid and/or mortal consequences that have been repeatedly demonstrated from constant exposure to injections of mRNA, particularly those which contain many broken and or fragmented mRNA segments due to poor initial purity as well as degradation due to poor handling during the many steps of transportation and storage occurring from production to injection ..

copied from the actual cleveland clinic study:

Discussion

This study found that not being “up-to-date” on COVID-19 vaccination, using the current CDC
definition, was associated with a lower risk of COVID-19 than being “up-to-date”, while the XBB lineages
were the dominant circulating strains of SARS-CoV-2.
There are two reasons why not being “up-to-date” on COVID-19 vaccination by the CDC
definition was associated with a lower risk of COVID-19. The first is that the bivalent vaccine was
somewhat effective against strains that were more similar to the strains on the basis of which the bivalent
vaccine was developed, but is not effective against the XBB lineages of the Omicron variant [2]. The
second is that the CDC definition does not consider the protective effect of immunity acquired from prior
infection. Because the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine provided some protection against the BA.4/BA.5 and
BQ lineages [2], those “not-up-to-date” were more likely than those “up-to-date” to have acquired a
BA.4/BA.5 or BQ lineage infection when those lineages were the dominant circulating strains. It is now
well-known that SARS-CoV-2 infection provides more robust protection than vaccination [4,11,12].
Therefore it is not surprising that not being “up-to-date” according to the CDC definition was associated
with a higher risk of prior BA.4/BA.5 or BQ lineage infection, and therefore a lower risk of COVID-19,
than being “up-to-date”, while the XBB lineages were dominant.
The strengths of our study include its large sample size, and its conduct in a healthcare system that
devoted resources to have an accurate accounting of who had COVID-19, when COVID-19 was
diagnosed, who received a COVID-19 vaccine, and when. The study methodology, treating vaccination
status as a time-dependent covariate, allowed for determining vaccine effectiveness in real time. Adjusting
for the propensity to get tested for COVID-19 should have mitigated against concern that individuals who
bothered to remain up-to-date on COVID-19 vaccination may have been more likely to get tested for
COVID-19 when they had symptoms.
Our study was limited to examination of all detected infections. We were unable to distinguish
between symptomatic and asymptomatic infections, and the rarity of severe illnesses precluded studying
It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.06.09.23290893; this version posted June 12, 2023. The copyright holder for this preprint
whether being “up-to-date” decreased severity of illness. Information on prior COVID-19 would have been
incomplete, as many asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic infections would have been missed. There
may have been unconsidered variables that might have influenced the results. Lastly, our study was done
in a healthcare population, and included no children and few elderly subjects, and the majority of study
subjects would not have been immunocompromised.
This study’s findings question the wisdom of promoting the idea that every person needs to be
“up-to-date” on COVID-19 vaccination, as currently defined, at this time. It is often stated that the primary
purpose of vaccination is to prevent severe COVID-19 and death. We certainly agree with this, but it
should be pointed out that there is not a single study that has shown that the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine
protects against severe disease or death caused by the XBB lineages of the Omicron variant. At least one
prior study has failed to find a protective effect of the bivalent vaccine against the XBB lineages of SARSCoV-2 [2]. 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 to all adults.
In conclusion, this study found that not being “up-to-date” on COVID-19 vaccination by the CDC
definition was associated with a lower risk of COVID-19 than being “up-to-date”. This study highlights
the challenges of counting on protection from a vaccine when the effectiveness of the vaccine decreases
over time as new variants emerge that are antigenically very different from those used to develop the
vaccine. It also demonstrates the folly of risk classification based solely on receipt of a vaccine of
questionable effectiveness while ignoring protection provided by prior infection.

[momincombatboots]

Everyone wanted the shots… just ask DJT. He signed the blank checks and stood before us promising 2 weeks. Trumps pronouns are fauci n birx.

[lightman]

Trumps pronouns are fauci n birx.

Good one.

[XRdsRev]

I think part of this was behavioral. Many people that got vaccinated believed the initial hype that once they got shots they were bulletproof from COVID and did not do anything additional to protect against becoming infected during time periods when there was ALOT of COVID transmission.

[AlaskaErik]

My wife got covid twice after she was vaxxed and boosted. She also get sick much more often now. I took no special precautions either time and never got sick. I had covid once before her two cases and have never had it again. I refused to take the needle and I’m so much better off because of it. She’s now sorry she ever took the needle. I hear that a lot from others who took the needle.

[catnipman]

“Many people that got vaccinated believed the initial hype that once they got shots they were bulletproof from COVID and did not do anything additional to protect against becoming infected during time periods when there was ALOT of COVID transmission.”

i think there’s some truth to that ... a primary doctor of mine, whom i USED to respect, got the clot shot very early on, and while everyone else was masking up, he took his off during my exam ... i asked him why, and he said he’d been vaxed so he didn’t need to worry anymore ... he then proceeded to spend a HUGE amount of time exhorting me to get vaxed, time i was paying him by the hour and which was unrelated to my consultation ... i was pretty P.O.ed about the whole thing ...

but THEN, he completely panicked a few weeks later when he finally discovered that the clot shot didn’t actually work all that great, and he refused to meet with patients face-to-face at all and would take only virtual consultations, the result of which nearly killed his private practice ...

all of the above would have been completely unavoidable for him had he just read a few widely available and credible medical papers [as well as CDC’s own information, even at that time] that the clot shot did NOT confer immunity or prevent communicability ... instead, he apparently chose to base his medical practice on propaganda in the popular press ...

[Vaduz]

Your not infected it’s just a tracking device the redness will go away soon.

We’ll keep in contact with you.

[oldtech]

I last had shots that MIGHT have been related to Covid when I was released from rehab in early 2021. Since then I had the shots for shingles; nothing else. I have had no problems that might be related to Covid since I was released from rehab..and I don’t plan on any more except maybe flu shots next fall or similar. I don’t want ANYTHING for Covid. By the way, I am 85 yrs. old.

[Grampa Dave]

I will be 85 in 3+ months.

Re the flu shot, our ppo/county has a big push in Sep/early October.

We usually don’t get the flu in our area until Thanksgiving.

The flu shot can lose its efficacy @ 20- 30-40% per month.

So if you get this year’s flu shot in our area in Sep., it is basically worthless when the flu usually hits here. My wife and I haven’t had a flu shot for 3+ years and probably will say no thank you this fall.