Pandemic Panic Redux: Blame The Inoculations So NOBODY Is "Safe"
The Data Still Debunks The Pandemic Panic Narrative
The perversity of the Pandemic Panic Narrative truly knows no bounds.
First there was the “fear-gasm” over China’s chaotic and poorly reported COVID outbreak coupled with the collapse of the Zero COVID policy.
Then came the politically motivated Pandemic Panic virtue signalling of travel restrictions against China—restricting people coming out of China even though the migration of the viral strains is going into China.
Meanwhile Omicron recombinant subvariant XBB.1.5 was targeted as the latest scary bug du jour to help revive the Pandemic Panic.
The finishing touch on the revival of the Pandemic Panic Narrative is an odd bit of self-destruction: blame the mRNA inoculations for emergence of recombinant strains such as XBB.1.5, so that no one can be safe from this new variant (emphasis mine).
It isn’t clear that XBB is any more lethal than other variants, but its mutations enable it to evade antibodies from prior infection and vaccines as well as existing monoclonal antibody treatments. Growing evidence also suggests that repeated vaccinations may make people more susceptible to XBB and could be fueling the virus’s rapid evolution.
Prior to Omicron’s emergence in November 2021, there were only four variants of concern: Alpha, Beta, Delta and Gamma. Only Alpha and Delta caused surges of infections globally. But Omicron has begotten numerous descendents, many of which have popped up in different regions of the world curiously bearing some of the same mutations.
That Omicron subvariants have emerged in diverse parts of the globe yet with common mutations is perhaps an argument furthering the “bioweapon hypothesis”, which holds that SARS-CoV-2 (and the major variants that have arisen since 2020) is the product of deliberate laboratory manufacture and even release.
However, the alternative scenario of the mRNA inoculations shaping viral mutation and evolutionary trends is perhaps more fascinating, as it puts the mRNA inoculations, once the hero of the Pandemic Panic Narrative, in the unusual role of the villain.
Without opining in favor of one or the other scenario, let us examine this “blame the vaccine” option.
Driving this “blame the vaccine” thread in the revival of the Pandemic Panic Narrative is a study1 recently published online at PLOS Biology, arguing that the mRNA inoculations have indeed spurred the emergence of more and more impactful variants to the original Wuhan strain of SAS-CoV-2.
Due to humoral immune imprinting, BA.2 and especially BA.5 breakthrough infection reduced the diversity of the NAb binding sites and increased proportions of non-neutralizing antibody clones, which in turn focused humoral immune pressure and promoted convergent evolution in the RBD. Moreover, we showed that the convergent RBD mutations could be accurately inferred by deep mutational scanning (DMS) profiles, and the evolution trends of BA.2.75/BA.5 subvariants could be well-foreseen through constructed convergent pseudovirus mutants. These results suggest current herd immunity and BA.5 vaccine boosters may not efficiently prevent the infection of Omicron convergent variants.
Our data show that anti-disease vaccines that do not prevent transmission can create conditions that promote the emergence of pathogen strains that cause more severe disease in unvaccinated hosts.
Even before the Read study was published in 2015, there was a developing body of scientific thought345 arguing that the use of imperfect vaccines can lead to the emergence of pathogen strains capable of greater virulence.
Here we show that vaccines designed to reduce pathogen growth rate and/or toxicity diminish selection against virulent pathogens. The subsequent evolution leads to higher levels of intrinsic virulence and hence to more severe disease in unvaccinated individuals.
Thus the argument that the mRNA inoculations are fueling more and more dangerous variants has a rational and scientific basis. The Pandemic Panic Narrative has grudgingly bowed to the inevitability of actual science in conceding this point.
Moreover, studies are appearing which show positive correlations between greater levels of inoculation and greater incidence of infection. Most recently there is a Cleveland Clinic study, published as a preprint6, which established this correlation among 51,011 employees of the Clinic.
Risk of COVID-19 increased with time since the most recent prior COVID-19 episode and with the number of vaccine doses previously received.
The Cleveland Clinic study took pains to establish that this contrarian finding was not any sort of statistical fluke, but was an organic characteristic of the data set.
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. 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 risk-taking behavior. Despite this, their risk of acquiring COVID-19 was lower than those who received a larger number of prior vaccine doses.
History of primary-series vaccination enhanced immune protection against omicron reinfection, but history of booster vaccination compromised protection against omicron reinfection.
The Cleveland Clinic study also reiterated findings from an earlier study conducted by the Clinic8 which found that multiple mRNA inoculations were counterproductive in those who had already had COVID-19.
Among those previously infected, receipt of 2 compared with 1 dose of vaccine was associated with higher risk of COVID-19 (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.21–1.97).
Thus there exists a body of research which connects COVID and mRNA inoculation data to the general theory that “leaky vaccines” can shape viral evolution towards greater virulence.
Nor can one simply dismiss this body of research as somehow being atypical outcomes of mass inoculation against COVID. What the researchers leave out is that their results have been reflected in the broad epidemiological data literally from the introduction of the various COVID inoculations.
As I documented in November of 2021, in country after country, rates of infection actually increased as COVID inoculation increased—a mathematically impossible result if the inoculations are effective against the disease.
Yet it is not merely that cases are increasing in Ireland. It is that they are increasing even as vaccinations have increased. When the cumulative cases are expressed as a percentage of Ireland’s population, and viewed side by side with the percentage of the population having been inoculated, this trend is made starkly clear:
A case curve bending up is the exact opposite of what a “return to normal” would be, and the exact opposite of what was promised by the mainstream media.
While the broad epidemiological data does not, of itself, establish a particular mechanism to explain the correlation between increased inoculation and increased incidence of infection, it unequivocally establishes that correlation—and has from the moment the inoculations were introduced.
Indeed, so strong is this correlation, that Kyle A. Beattie, of the University of Alberta’s Department of Political Science, was able to establish via Bayesian analysis a strong statistical probability that mass inoculation against COVID led to increased infection and increased death from COVID—the strongest “red flag” conceivable against continued administration of the mRNA inoculations.
What Mr Beattie found is that in the overwhelming majority of countries, mass vaccination against COVID-19 causes more cases and more deaths than would have resulted had there been no vaccines at all.
Results indicate that the treatment (vaccine administration) has a strong and statistically significant propensity to causally increase the values in either y1 or y2 over and above what would have been expected with no treatment. y1 showed an increase/decrease ratio of (+115/-13), which means 89.84% of statistically significant countries showed an increase in total deaths per million associated with COVID-19 due directly to the causal impact of treatment initiation. y2 showed an increase/decrease ratio of (+105/-16) which means 86.78% of statistically significant countries showed an increase in total cases per million of COVID-19 due directly to the causal impact of treatment initiation.
Far from being even a marginal benefit, this analysis indicates the vaccines are doing demonstrable harm. The mass vaccination campaigns have increased both cases and deaths, rather than reduced them.
Thus these latest studies confirm the clear warning signals that were present just in the broad epidemiological data over a year ago: not only are the mRNA inoculations toxic in their own right, but they have made the COVID pandemic demonstrably worse.
Which is the perversity of the corporate media seizing on these studies at this particular juncture. By turning on the incoculations and arguing these “discovered” dangers, the corporate media is making the case that the world is functionally returned to January 2020, a time when the general perception was that no one was safe against the ravages of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and the sparse data about the disease available at the time indicated the virus might very well be a second coming of the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918.
While the data that has emerged since then makes it clear that COVID, though arguably a serious and severe disease, is hardly on the level of the 1918 Spanish Influenza, the Pandemic Panic Narrative has from the outset sought to freeze public perception of the virus where it was in early 2020, a perception that is flatly rejected by the mountain of epidemiological data that has developed since, as demonstrated by the CDC’s hospitalization statistics undercutting the media’s hyperventilations about the XBB.1.5 recombinant Omicron subvariant.
The corporate media gets this much right: the mRNA COVID inoculations are not only ineffective but are demonstrably counterproductive. Yet the corporate media’s inference that, without the inoculations, COVID itself is a dangerous and deadly disease posing unacceptable risk to us all, is categorically and demonstrably false.
The mRNA COVID inoculations are demonstrably dangerous and deadly. COVID itself is demonstrably neither dangerous nor deadly to the greater proportion of humanity.
The data has long established both of these statements to be absolutely true, despite the continued convolutions of a corporate media desperate to revive the Pandemic Panic Narrative.
All Facts Matter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Alternatively, please consider leaving a tip through Ko-Fi. Thank you always for your support!
Yunlong, C., et al. “Imprinted SARS-CoV-2 Humoral Immunity Induces Convergent Omicron RBD Evolution.” Nature, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05644-7.
Read, A. F., et al. “Imperfect Vaccination Can Enhance the Transmission of Highly Virulent Pathogens.” PLOS Biology, vol. 13, no. 7, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002198.
Gandon, S et al. “Imperfect vaccines and the evolution of pathogen virulence.” Nature vol. 414,6865 (2001): 751-6. doi:10.1038/414751a
Anderson, R M, and R M May. “Coevolution of hosts and parasites.” Parasitology vol. 85 (Pt 2) (1982): 411-26. doi:10.1017/s0031182000055360
May, Robert Mccredie, and Roy Malcolm Anderson. "Epidemiology and genetics in the coevolution of parasites and hosts." Proceedings of the Royal society of London. Series B. Biological sciences 219.1216 (1983): 281-313.
Shrestha, N. K., et al. Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Bivalent Vaccine. 19 Dec. 2022, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v1.
Chemaitelly, H., et al. COVID-19 Primary Series and Booster Vaccination and Immune Imprinting. 1 Nov. 2022, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.10.31.22281756v1.
Shrestha, N. K., et al. “Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccine Boosting in Previously Infected or Vaccinated Individuals.” Clinical Infectious Diseases, vol. 75, no. 12, 2022, pp. 2169–2177, https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciac327.