Cleveland Clinic Study Reveals Higher COVID-19 Rates With More Boosters

The authors of a recent study that examined healthcare workers employed by the Cleveland Clinic concluded that the new bivalent booster shot offers modest protection against COVID-19. For those who didn’t read past the first page of the study, they missed the punchline that the more a person is boosted the greater the likelihood of developing COVID-19.

In Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Bivalent Vaccine, the authors claim that the bivalent boosters were about 30% effective although they do not reveal if that is relative or absolute effectiveness. The authors also use “infection” and “COVID-19” interchangeably so I’m not sure if they mean that the shot actually prevents infection, or that it prevents the disease state known as COVID-19 resulting from infection of the SARS- CoV-2 virus, although later in the paper they do mention that the shots are 30% effective against infection. No need for clarity and consistency, it’s only a scientific paper in which you want considerable confusion to solidify your standing.

Despite their conclusion of the bivalent booster’s modest effectiveness, the authors appear befuddled by the fact that there is increased risk of COVID-19 associated with higher numbers of prior vaccine doses. They try to offer a weak explanation that they themselves acknowledge is unlikely.

The association of increased risk of COVID-19 with higher numbers of prior vaccine doses in our study, was unexpected. A simplistic explanation might be that those who received more doses were more likely to be individuals at higher risk of COVID-19. A small proportion of individuals may have fit this description. However, the majority of subjects in this study were generally young individuals and all were eligible to have received at least 3 doses of vaccine by the study start date, and which they had every opportunity to do.

and,

Therefore, those who received fewer than 3 doses (>45% of individuals in the study) were not those ineligible to receive the vaccine, but those who chose not to follow the CDC’s recommendations on remaining updated with COVID-19 vaccination, and one could reasonably expect these individuals to have been more likely to have exhibited higher risktaking behavior. Despite this, their risk of acquiring COVID-19 was lower than those who received a larger number of prior vaccine doses.

They share this little nugget about other studies that also find that the more times a person gets injected with these wonder shots, the more likely they are to get infected.

This is not the only study to find a possible association with more prior vaccine doses and higher risk of COVID-19. A large study found that those who had an Omicron variant infection after previously receiving three doses of vaccine had a higher risk of reinfection than those who had an Omicron variant infection after previously receiving two doses of vaccine [21]. Another study found that receipt of two or three doses of a mRNA vaccine following prior COVID-19 was associated with a higher risk of reinfection than receipt of a single dose [7].

They also share this handy little graph that reaffirms visually the fact that the more shots someone gets the more likely they are to get infected.

When you get the reverse of the intended effect, it’s called negative efficacy. Quite the conundrum.

I suppose one could say the shots are effective in the sense that they appear to be more effective at increasing your chance of infection the more doses you get?

So in the world of Big Medicine, a conversation might go like this when talking with COVID shot proponents about the results of this study:

“The more of these 95%, er, modestly effective shots you get, the more likely you are to get infected which means these shots work. If this doesn’t make sense to you, then you’re just not smart enough to understand which means you need to turn your medical decision making rights and responsibilities over to the experts. We medical professionals are the only ones who can understand how shots that don’t prevent infection, and appear to increase infection, are effective.”

“It really is complicated stuff and you shouldn’t concern yourself with it. Just follow our guidelines, and run out to get your shots before you get infected.”

“So you can get infected after you get the shots. Which means they work. Trust me.”

So turn off the critical thinking side of your brain and trust them. They are experts.

By the way, I have some ocean front property in South Dakota I would like to sell to you. Trust me;-)

I actually think there is a very good chance the authors are just playing stupid touting “modest” efficacy while revealing the negative efficacy and other similar studies at the same time. Many careers have been lost by those who question or oppose the mainstream narrative so perhaps they chose what amounts to subterfuge to get the word out.

Either way, the emperor is naked.