Thursday, May 23, 2024

GET OUR FREE E-NEWSLETTER

“You may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again that you did not know.”

— William Wilberforce

Search

Oxford Study Finds Increased COVID Infection Rate Among the COVID Vaccinated

woman laying on couch

Researchers from Oxford University in the United Kingdom published a study in The Lancet finding that those who received two doses of COVID-19 shot were 44 percent more likely to be infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus than those who were unvaccinated.1 2

The study, published on June 30 2022, collected data from Dec. 8, 2020 to Nov. 17, 2021. The research was focused on effectiveness of COVID vaccination in overweight individuals, but data listed on a supplementary appendix within the study reveals that, out of the nine million patients in a British national registry, infection was more prevalent among those who had received the COVID  vaccine.1 2

The appendix figures demonstrate that, in the two weeks following the initial shot, individuals were three to four times more likely to test positive for COVID. Two weeks or more after the second COVID shot, individuals demonstrated a 44 percent higher likelihood of infection.1 2

Boosters May Weaken Immune System

European health regulators have voiced concern that getting too many COVID booster shots may weaken the immune response. Earlier this year, the Head of Biological Threats and Vaccines Strategy at the European Medicines Agency (EMA), pharmacologist Marco Cavaleri, stated:

If we have a strategy in which we give boosters, let’s say every four months, we will end up potentially having a problem with the immune response, and the immune response may end up not being as good as we would like it to be. So we should be careful in not overloading the immune system with repeated immunization.3

Japanese Researcher Believes Boosters Should End

In June 2022, Japanese cardiologist and researcher Kenji Yamamoto, MD published a letter in Virology Journal commenting on the Oxford study. He concluded that, “As a safety measure, further booster vaccinations should be discontinued,” adding that “COVID-19 vaccination is a major risk factor for infections in critically ill patients.”4 He listed what he believed to be potential causes of decreased immune function in COVID vaccinated individuals, including the spike protein, lipid nanoparticles, antibody-dependent enhancement and original antigenic stimulus.

Dr. Yamomoto suggested that the modified spike protein contained in COVID vaccine may induce the activation of regulatory T-cells, which decreases cellular immunity. He stated that, “the spike proteins do not immediately decay following the administration of mRNA vaccines,” but go on to circulate throughout the body for more than four months.

He pointed out that in vivo studies have shown that the highly inflammatory lipid nanoparticles, which encapsulate the mRNA in the mRNA COVID vaccine that delivers genetic information to the body’s cells to produce the spike protein, accumulate in the liver, spleen, adrenal glands, and ovaries. Dr. Yamamoto concludes that “newly generated antibodies of the spike protein damage the cells and tissues that are primed to produce spike proteins,” and thus can damage the vascular system, which carries blood and lymph through the body.5 He added that the adrenal gland, which is an immune system organ modulating immune function, may also be damaged.6

CDC and FDA Recommend Fourth Booster Despite No Human Studies

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) currently recommends that individuals receive a fourth booster shot as soon as they are eligible. Currently, adults aged 50 or older fall into this category, as well as those who are immunocompromised and over the age of 12 years.7

The reformulated bivalent boosters, designed to target the BA.4 and BA.5 Omicron subvariants, were not studied in human trials before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the two mRNA COVID vaccine manufacturers, Pfizer and Moderna, to distribute the boosters in the U.S.8 9

There has been public criticism of the FDA’s decision to move forward with fast tracking approval of yet another COVID booster under an EUA, this time only considering evidence from a tiny animal study in mice, rather than evidence from human clinical trials.  Most of the concern is not focused on the vaccine safety and efficacy science gaps, but on how the FDA’s action may contribute to eroding public trust in federal health agencies that regulate and make policy for vaccine use, contributing to “vaccine hesitancy.”10 11


If you would like to receive an e-mail notice of the most recent articles published in The Vaccine Reaction each week, click here.

Click here to view References:

7 Responses

  1. I think their figures are wrong…it’s probably like 100 percent. I know 2 people who got two shots, and they both got violently ill and (golly gee whiz!) tested “positive” for the bioweapon…er I mean “covid”.

    I also noticed that all those alleged “pro life” people are taking the shots, never mind they used fetal cell lines from aborted babies in them…or maybe they don’t know, I told one person about that and that person said they’re not going to take any more shots. I hope they don’t.

  2. I’m dubious of the Method used. They have matched people up based on various factors which is normal with a case controlled study. But if you take a look at table 7 in the appendix (efficacy against death) for example, you will see that 3684 out of 17402 healthy weight people who contracted covid died. That’s a 15.4% case fatality rate- way above the real world rate. The vaccinated deaths are then measured against this. It might still be comparing apples with apples but with such a large aberation as this in the baseline you have to wonder.
    If anyone knows more about how this sort of study works and can throw some light on it, I would be most appreciative.

  3. This should have been found in the vaccine trial data!
    I checked Pfizer data: no difference for the first 2 weeks.

    I could not find which ? cause the increase.
    Reference 1. didn’t mention which manufacturer.
    Reference 2. was a study compare Pfizer to Moderna. Their was no unvax group.

    Health official an V-safe should also have known!

    Did Pfizer cheat on the studies?
    Did people get COVID waiting in lines at the mass ??????? sight?

  4. The principal purpose of the various jabs is to cut the world’s population, which is already way too large – Homo sapiens has overrun the planet and the only remedy (short of nuclear war) is to implement a way of reducing the human rabbits by (say) 5% year-on-year, Simple arithmetic shows that within 10 years the rabbits will be reduced to less than 60% of the present number – and hey presto – the problem of global warming, lack of food/water etc is solved.
    The Australians were faced with the ‘rabbit problem’ and solved it elegantly with myxomatosis. Now the more serious problem of excess breeding is in the process of being solved thanks to giants of perception such as Gates, Pfizer and Fauci. Go for it!

  5. There was also a significantly higher likelihood of confirmed SARS-COV-2 infection after the first and
    second doses in participants who had been vaccinated versus those who had not, but lower after the third dose
    with significant heterogeneity by BMI category (P<0·0001; appendix 1 [p 10]).

    I found this on the PDF on reference 2.

    Does this mean COVID ? increased COVID?

  6. Reference 2
    “Participants entered the analyses on Dec 8, 2020, and were censored on the earliest date of the outcome of
    interest (ie, COVID-19-related hospital admission, death, or infection), death from other causes, or the latest date
    for which data were available. ”

    The have data for all cause of death ☠️.
    They can compare ??☠️ with ?☠️, and ??☠️, and ???☠️, For each age group. of people living in same conditions and same health condition.
    They can tell baced on their age and weight if?? cause more or less ☠️.

    All other study compare ☠️ before ? and death after ??, baced on community ?rate. Did the ?? people die more , or did the community people die more , or both?

    Oxford data would be more conclusive!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search in Archive