Study: Those Up-to-Date with the Shots Gets More COVID-19

This article shows presents a study from the Cleveland Clinic that shows that people who are up-to-date with the mRNA COVID-19 shots are more susceptible to a COVID-19 infection.

Recently I published The Devastating Effects of IgG4 after the mRNA COVID shots which showed that one consequence is the increased risk of SARS-pCoV-2 reinfection.

The recently published preprint study from the Cleveland Clinic on June 12, 2023, found that those who are “not up to date” have fewer COVID-19 infections. The research concluded:

Since the (SARS-CoV-2) XBB lineages became dominant, adults “not up-to-date” by the CDC definition have a lower risk of COVID-19 than those “up-to-date” on COVID-19 vaccination, bringing into question the value of this risk classification definition.

“Up to date” with COVID-19 “vaccination” is defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as when an individual had a booster shot with a 2.0 version of the mRNA jabs designed for the Omicron variant.

Those booster shots were hastily released after testing them on eight mice. Read about it at — Seven things wrong with the Moderna mRNA-1283 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Phase 1 Trial.

The authors from the Infectious Disease Department, Infection Prevention, and Quantitative Health Sciences of Cleveland Clinic included 48,44 subjects who are employees of the same institution.

The result showed that those “not up to date” have a lower risk of COVID-19. (Hazard Ratio, 0.77; 95% C.I., 0.69-0.86; P-value, <0.001).

A less than one hazard ratio means less likelihood of getting COVID-19 infected in this study.

The figure below shows more COVID-19 infections in those who are up-to-date than those who are not.

Day zero was 29 January 2023, the day the XBB lineages of the Omicron variant became the dominant strains in Ohio.

 

The two groups (up-to-date and not up-to-date) are matched by age, sex, and most recent prior SARS-CoV-2 infection phase to ensure that none of these factors explains the difference in the number of COVID-19 infections.

What explains the results?

The authors pointed out two reasons, and I included their references:

 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]

Nabin K Shrestha and others, Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Bivalent Vaccine, Open Forum Infectious Diseases, Volume 10, Issue 6, June 2023, ofad209

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.

To paraphrase, those not up-to-date developed stronger immunity against the XBB lineage because of a previous infection with a BA.4/BA.5 or BQ lineage infection.

To finish that argument, they said something I rarely see in published studies in mainstream journals about COVID-19 mRNA jabs,

It is now well-known that SARS-CoV-2 infection provides more robust protection than vaccination.

They cited the published works of Shrestha et al., Gazit et al., and Leon et al. to support that. They also mentioned,

… 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.[1]

I also wrote about how booster shots degrade the immune system — Repeated COVID booster shots Impair Immunity.

More of my articles about the immune system’s superiority in fighting SARS-CoV-2 are in the articles at the end.

Pfizer and Moderna and IgG4

Back to the Cleveland Clinic study, among those “up-to-date” on COVID-19 “vaccination,” (87%) received the Pfizer “vaccine,” and (13%) received the Moderna jabs.

Studies proved mRNA COVID shots like Pfizer and Moderna to increase IgG4 (Immunoglobulin G4) several months after infection. I wrote about them at:

• Pfizer mRNA shots Switch Antibodies to Non-Neutralizing IgG4
• Moderna and Pfizer COVID jabs Increase Anti-inflammatory IgG4

IgG4 makes the immune system more tolerant to SARS-CoV-2 instead of getting rid of them, making a vaxxed person more likely to have COVID-19.

Abnormally high levels of IgG4 have been linked to serious cases of COVID-19— Three Studies Link High IgG4 to Severe COVID-19.

Not only does IgG4 promote COVID-19 reinfections, but abnormally high IgG4 can also predispose to cancer, IgG4-related diseases, autoimmunity, and a resurgence of latent infections like shingles and tuberculosis.

Read more about them in The Devastating Effects of IgG4 after the mRNA COVID shots.

In summary, this preprint Cleveland Clinic study by infectious disease specialists shows that booster shots increase the risk of COVID-19 infections.

Do you still want to be up-to-date?

Truth heals. Lies kill. Don’t Get Sick!

Knowledge about Covid-19 is rapidly evolving. Stay current by subscribing. Feel free to share and like.

If you find value in this website, please consider buying me a coffee to show your support.

Follow me on Gettr, Truth Social, Gab, Parler, Twitter, Facebook, Follow, and Telegram.

Articles about Natural Immunity Against COVID-19:

1. Lancet: Natural immunity is effective against COVID-19
2. Natural immunity beats the Pfizer and Moderna shots
3. Natural immunity vs. Pfizer BNT162b2 vs. Coronavac
4. Natural Immunity Protected Tanzania and Zambia from COVID-19
5. Naturally acquired antibodies from COVID-19 last up to 20 months
6. CDC data shows an equal risk of COVID-19 hospitalization for convalescent and vax-induced immunity
7. Ultrapotent antibodies from natural infection against diverse and highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants
8. Durable Immunity from Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Lasts Only Six Months
9. Harvard: Immunity from mild COVID-19 infection much better than vaccination
10. Who develops a better Immunity against SARS-CoV-2? The vaccinated or the previously infected?
11. The Risks of Dying from COVID-19
12. COVID-19 reinfection is mild in children and adolescents
13. Convalescent antibodies from COVID-19 last up to 18 months
14. Study shows absence of omicron neutralization with the Pfizer and AstraZeneca shots
15. The human body is a SARS-CoV-2 variant factory, and that’s a good thing
16. Ten Studies showing a low risk of COVID-19 reinfection among unvaccinated
17. High Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies Among the Unvaccinated in Bangui, Central African Republic
18. Protective Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 are the same in Convalescent and Vaccinated
19. Asymptomatic or mild symptomatic COVID-19 elicits effective and long-lasting antibody responses in children and adolescents
20. Can coronaviruses elicit long-lasting immunity?
21. 60% may already have Immunity to COVID-19
22. Pre-Existing T-Cells Stop COVID-19 Before it Starts
23. Harvard: Immunity from mild COVID-19 infection much better than vaccination
24. Natural Immunity Protected Tanzania and Zambia from COVID-19
25. CD4+ Cross-Reactivity between Seasonal Coronavirus Colds and COVID-19
26. Antibodies to COVID-19 can Exist in the Uninfected

References: