Covid lab drama as Trojan Horse: Vaccination makes more susceptible (addendum)

In the previous post One question remained unanswered: the vaccination status of test subjects who, after fruitless attempts to infect them, spontaneously contracted a corona infection. A table column in an appendix had escaped my attention, for which I apologize. This has been corrected, thanks to Cees Mul: the unvaccinated in this study were better protected, more than 4 times as good.

Of the 9 subjects with natural immunity, 1 contracted an infection (11%).

Of the 27 who had had both vaccinations and an infection, 13 had contracted another infection during that period (48%). More than four times as much.

Subjects	Corona infection contracted	No corona infection	Total
Not vaccinated	1	8	9
Vaccinated	13	14	27
Total	14	22	36

One test subject, with basic series in group 1x10², became infected twice in the follow-up period. (See the previous post for info on dosages)

The severity of the symptoms was classified as Mild, Moderate and Severe. All but one of the subjects had mild symptoms. The one with Moderate symptoms was one of the 6 boosters.

Other than that, the dose didn't really seem to make much of a difference either:

• 1x10¹: 2x Mild symptoms
• 1x10²: 6x Mild symptoms
• 1x10³: 3x Mild symptoms
• 1x10⁴: 3x Mild symptoms
• 1x10⁵: 1x Moderate symptoms

The appendix: https://www.thelancet.com/cms/10.1016/S2666-5247(24)00025-9/attachment/bbea3bcb-c81f-4d3b-bc4c-cdd295f58eba/mmc1.pdf

The p-value obtained with these 9 unvaccinated subjects and 1 infection yields a non-significant difference: p=0.062 (Fisher's Exact Test). That p must be lower than 0.05. So that's on the edge. For example, if the group of unvaccinated people had consisted of 18 people with 2 infections, the result would have been convincing and statistically significant.

Ashes are burnt peat, but with the mechanistic explanations we have (see below) this result is at least indicative or suggestive. And we also have previous studies (including the two Cleveland studies mentioned) that showed the increased susceptibility after vaccinations. So there is every reason to insist on follow-up research with slightly larger numbers.

There was no mention of this in the report. It is not the first time that interesting figures have been left undiscussed. Researchers measure it, put it in a table somewhere, and avoid pointing it out in the Summary or even in the Discussion. That could jeopardize publication.

Follow-up research is crucial

1. It is important whether the first acquaintance with the spike protein was through natural infection or through the injection. The first exposure to a virus affects the immunological outcomes of subsequent exposures to antigenically related strains. In Sweden, the virus circulated more before vaccination was introduced. Excess mortality follows a different pattern. Who knows, they may have found something with this study.
   Persistent immune imprinting after booster (article from Cell.com)
   Omicron breakthrough infections after booster and bivalent COVID-19 vaccination primarily evoke cross-reactive memory B cells induced by prior Wuhan-Hu-1 spike mRNA vaccination rather than priming Omicron-specific naïve B cells.
   In short: vaccinations have disabled the untrained immune system against subsequent corona infections. The nose was initially placed the wrong way. Can this explain that Sweden has a different excess mortality pattern, because the infections there preceded the vaccinations?
2. The more than four times higher risk of a corona infection may apply to people whose specific immune system against coronaviruses has only been derailed by the vaccinations. Purely corona-related, antigenically related.
   This does not rule out that the immune system in a broader sense is disrupted. After this experience, wouldn't the immune system also react differently to random other viral and bacterial infections: gonorrhea, syphilis, whooping cough, shingles, colds, flu, etc? (IgG shift).
   We don't know. A large part of the world's population has been injected with it. In this study, almost half of the vaccinated people got a corona infection again, compared to 1 in 10 unvaccinated people. Are no efforts being made to find out more about this?
3. The immune system has evolved to deal with integral viruses, bacteria and fungi and now suddenly receives an attack via the injection from the flank, around the mucosal defenses, with an ingredient surreptitiously inserted into the bloodstream (yes also via muscles) that evades detection thanks to the ingenious LNP packaging.
   So it seems to the immune system as if the cells themselves spontaneously mutiny in all kinds of places in the body. What to do? Changing your defensive strategy because of this unexpected twist?
   Immunosuppression is then obvious: the immune system puts itself on the back burner so as not to trigger one infection after another and thus cause even more damage to its own body. As a result, the signaling of tumor cells, which are normally effectively destroyed and disposed of, also weakens. Are cancer developments properly monitored for this?

Just some questions following a study with obsolete virus strains of a disease that no longer means anything. The priorities for these researchers are not where they should be - at least not in the formal reporting.

We see that as a Trojan horse for the underlying data. Should we really read scientific papers as coded messages...?

This was in addition to this previous post.