top of page



So here’s an interesting little graphic from a pre-print (the results are non-controversial) just published, entitled “Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Bivalent Vaccine” (Hat tip Alex Berenson)

This depicts research done on about 50,000 employees of the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio looking at COVID infections and vaccine status. One cool feature of this study was “A waiver of informed consent and waiver of HIPAA authorization were approved to allow the research team to access to (sic) the required data.” So as I pointed out in yesterday’s piece, apparently any pretense anyone had as to their medical privacy is out the window. Sounds about right. Anyway, in this graph day zero is September 12, 2022, the day the bivalent vaccine began to be offered to employees.

What is crystal clear is that the more vaccines you have, the more likely you are to catch the ‘vid. In fact, those with FOUR OR MORE SHOTS were about FOUR TIMES MORE LIKELY to get COVID than those with ZERO VACCINES. Now as you know, I ain’t no expert in nuthin, but I’m pretty sure that’s not the way vaccines are supposed to work.

So what appears quite clear is that what many have been predicting since the advent of the new Golden Idol in a syringe has come to pass. Those of us who rushed out to get vaccinated (not me, I'm just trying to be inclusive) against a virus that always posed an almost zero threat to almost all of us have now compromised our immune systems. We now have a lesser ability to defend against this “novel” coronavirus (which will be with us forever), and quite possibly a lesser ability to defend against other pathogens as well. I wonder what Anthony Fauci would have to say about this data…(Tune in tomorrow for Fauci's biggest lie yet)

But here are some funny parts of this paper. There are always funny parts when watching people try to push a narrative and play down their own results.

The introduction to the paper starts out (my bold) “When the original Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines first became available in 2020, there was ample evidence of efficacy from randomized clinical trials [1,2]” “Ample evidence”? Sure, we all remember the “95% effective” story we were told, correct? But as I have shown you several times before, that was NEVER the case. In fact if you read the two papers cited here to support the claims of “ample evidence” and you do some honest, real-world math, you find out that the “95%” effective thing was ALWAYS a lie. In the first paper, the one published in December of 2020 in which Pfizer debuted their trial results, you will find that the actual real-world difference, the “protection” gained from the vaccine amounted to about 0.7%. That’s a “protection” from infection of seven-tenths of one percent. That’s it. If you look at the second paper in which the results for Moderna were published, the difference was a whopping 1.1%. That’s it.

The intro goes on to tell us “This was when the human population had just encountered the novel Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus, and the pathogen had exacted a high burden of morbidity and mortality across the world. The vaccines were amazingly effective in preventing COVID-19, saved a large number of lives, and changed the impact of the pandemic.”

First, by the time the vaccines were introduced in December of 2020, COVID had already been a thing for at least a year. That’s not “had just encountered” Second, the “high burden” of morbidity exacted at that point accounted for about 0.0002% of the world’s population. That’s two ten-thousandths of one percent. I know to some I will sound callous, but words matter and two ten-thousandths of one percent is not a “high burden”. Third, we’ve already addressed the “amazingly effective” nonsense.

The authors conclude “The bivalent COVID-19 vaccine given to working-aged adults afforded modest protection overall against COVID-19” Have they looked at their own graph? They continue “This study found that the current bivalent vaccines were about 30% effective overall in protecting against infection with SARS-CoV-2” “30%”?? Weren’t we told they were “highly effective” by Tony and Joe? What's up with that?

The paper concludes “In conclusion, this study found an overall modest protective effect of the bivalent vaccine booster against COVID-19, among working-aged adults. The effect of multiple COVID-19 vaccine doses on future risk of COVID-19 needs further study.” Well that’s an understatement. Their own data shows a direct and positive relationship between “multiple” vaccines and a lesser ability for the body to defend itself and the best they can say is it “needs further study”? I’m sure even writing those words was painful for them.

Do you understand? Even with these results, mainstream “scientists” cannot bring themselves to clearly state what their own data shows; because it doesn’t fit the narrative.

Liars and imbeciles all.

30 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All
bottom of page