patrick.net

Negative effectiveness

As if that all were not enough, Lataster also mentions what may be the most distressing issue around the jabs in Article 2, negative effectiveness (keep following the negative effectiveness links backwards in time to go through the many OTN entries on this issue). This is where, apart from all the (other) known and unknown adverse effects, the vaccines appear to increase the risk of COVID-19 infection and/or hospitalisation and/or death. Clearly not what one gets vaccinated for. There would be no analysis of the risks vs the benefits possible. We would only have risks upon risks.

Lataster shows how, with the biases discussed in Articles 1 & 2, “a vaccine with −100% effectiveness, meaning that it makes symptomatic COVID-19 infection twice as likely, can be perceived as being 47% effective”. Furthermore, “Repeated calculations will show that moderate vaccine effectiveness is still perceived even with actual vaccine effectiveness figures of −1000% and lower.” In other words, the possibility that the vaccines were always negatively effective, and only appeared effective due to incomplete data, poor methods, short counting windows, and even outright fraudulent practices, is very much on the table. Interestingly, even the BMJ, one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world, appears to be aware of perceived negative effectiveness, publishing, amongst others, a rapid response on the topic by Lataster (source, OTN entry).

A new study has concluded that the more Covid mRNA shots a person receives, the more likely they are to contract COVID-19.

Dr. Nabin Shrestha and his team conducted an analysis of data from Cleveland Clinic employees.

The researchers reported that they found that the likelihood of a person contracting Covid increased each time they received a dose of the vaccine.

People who received two or more doses were at higher risk of COVID-19, they noted.

The risk of contracting COVID-19 was 1.5 times higher for those who received two doses and 1.95 times higher for those who received three doses, the researchers found

Those who received three or more doses were 2.5 times more likely to contract the virus.

The higher risk was compared to people who received zero or one dose of a vaccine.

The pseudo-effectiveness of Covid vaccines against death from unrelated causes is not a new observation. The same kind of pseudo-effectiveness was discovered long ago for the flu vaccines. It is called the “healthy vaccinee effect.” For various reasons, unrelated to the vaccines, people who are vaccinated have better background health (on average) than people who are not, and therefore, they are less likely to die from “anything,” including flu and Covid. Vaccinated or not, they would have had lower Covid mortality than their unvaccinated counterparts.

When we try to estimate the effect of Covid (or flu) vaccines, the healthy vaccinee effect becomes the healthy vaccinee bias, a source of distortion that must be removed. (Conversely, we may call it the “unhealthy unvaccinated” bias.) Research on this topic has been sparse, however. Neither the pharmaceutical industry nor public health officials have had an interest in discovering that common vaccines were not as effective as they claimed them to be, or perhaps not effective at all.

Cleveland Clinic previously published the first major report of “negative effectiveness” after repeated administration of COVID mRNA “vaccines”. What the heck is “negative effectiveness” you may ask? This is a rather nuanced way of saying that, sometime after administration, those who received the “vaccine” products became MORE likely to develop COVID 19 clinical disease. Not only do the “vaccine” products not provide substantial long term protection from infection and disease, but they actually make recipients more likely to develop clinically significant COVID.