The COVID-19 Vaccine Trial Data Are Irrelevant for the Current Real-World Situation. BONUS: Pierre Kory's IPAK-EDU Lecture

Some argue they never were relevant to real-world. Read to the end for a free IPAK-EDU course lecture from Dr. Pierre Kory. Please Tweet this article. #TwitterSetDrJackFree

When Moderna and Pfizer published their respective “95%” efficacy estimates of their mRNA vaccines, they used a cheat code: they dropped from their analyses the people who got COVID-19 after the first shot, but before the second. They also, we now know, dropped anyone who got COVID-19 within two weeks after the second shot.

These obviously did not reflect real-world conditions.

My recalculation of the Moderna vaccine’s original efficacy was around 75%.

Every measure of vaccine efficacy - defined as the ability of the vaccine to reduce transmission - had long since plummeted to zero - or below zero. Negative vaccine efficacy means increased transmission from the vaccinated.

So the goal post was moved from “prevents transmission” to the effects of the vaccines on rates of severe COVID-19 and hospitalizations. The claims of vaccine efficacy at reducing severe COVID-19 and hospitalizations are bone of contention that has not been adequately address. Vinay Prasad, John Campbell and others are apparently unaware that the formal definition of “vaccinated” being moved from “has received a vaccine” to “5 weeks after the first dose” led to the exclusion of people who participated in the population-wide uncontrolled, open-label, non-randomized prospective trials of mRNA vaccines simply because they developed COVID-19, well, before 5 weeks after first being vaccinated.

This moving of the goal post has been obvious to those who know that the majority of those hospitalized and still dying from COVID-19 are now vaccinated or at least have received one dose of an mRNA vaccine.

This problem has to be formally addressed; the jig, as they say, is up.

That factor aside, the relevance of the trial data for the current world is now nil even without that cheat code activated, for two reasons:

(1) Different virus(es). Starting with Delta, everything was different. The virus was obviously escaping the vaccine, with that escape being driven by vaccine selection. The viruses have also been selected by surviving by not killing their hosts, and by evading detection by PCR. Arguing about cross-neutralizing antibodies from boosters to a “new variant” that is almost certainly now itself already extinct… from studies that ignore prior immunity, well, let’s just say that COVID-19 vaccine science is a dumpster fire.

(2) Different population. Most, if not all, of the peoples of the Western and Eastern world shave now been infected with COVID-19, either before being vaccinated or without being vaccinated, or after being vaccinated. This changes the host immunologic landscape considerably, leading to original antigenic sin, and to Geert vanden Bossche’s concerns over Immune Refocusing, and also (importantly) to a lot of people with long-term memory T-cells to non-spike proteins anyway.

Because the science on the immunologic response to the vaccine focused - by far - mostly on antibodies to the spike protein, comparing antibody levels from the vaccine spike vs. the virus(es) spike(s). By ignoring antibodies to other viral proteins, the studies falsely concluded (false due to insufficiency of data) that the best path to immunity was infection following vaccination. Had the studies comparing vaccine “immunity” to immunity following infection bothered to check for levels of neutralizing antibodies, or better yet memory B and memory T-cells, to, say, the nucleocapsid protein epitopes, the conclusion of “Antibody levels show superior vaccine immunity” would obviously had been different. As I’ve said from the start: Broad, not deep immunity is lasting in COVID-19. Deep immunity is actually problematic given pathogenic priming and antibody dependent enhancement.

The combined effects of these changes have led to Australia’s recommendation against a fifth shot, owing to low benefit in recipients (I suspect that harm factor (pathogenic priming) is playing a role.

The changes also have led to jaw-dropping recommendations from a group of scientists that perhaps general vaccination should be ceased.

Scientists Call for Wholescale Reframing of COVID-19 Vaccination

I contend this outcome would have been more than obvious a few months into the vaccination program if the people who were “vaccinating” (i.e., who received 1- or 2-doses but got COVID-19 before 5 weeks after their initial dose) had been counted.

The industry’s needless destruction of the careers of people like Dr. Paul Marik, Dr. Pierre Kory, Dr. Peter McCullough, and so many others- all of this could have been prevented. Countless lives could have been saved by NOT sending people home to get as sick as possible, for all the reasons I have outlined too many times to count.

If the GOP takes the White House, these people should oversee the transition of NIH/CDC/FDA to #PlanB. Who is with me?

Extra: goofRecently, Dr. Kory graced a class @ IPAK-EDU last week with a lecture outlining the systematic manner in which the PharmaMedicoCartel used Big Tobacco tactics to destroy the careers of himself and numerous colleagues. I’m sharing the lecture, part of Dr. Mark McDonald’s course “How Not to Be Fooled”, for all subscribers to Popular Rationalism as a holiday gift and a thank you for all you have done to help make Popular Rationalism of the best Substacks in the Substack arena: with your paid subscriptions, you’ve made us officially a “Best Seller!” Thank you! (For those looking, here’s the IPAK-EDU link for other courses).

PLUS! Mark your calendars, for this Wednesday, Nov 23, 11 AM ET, a VERY special Holiday “Unbreaking Science” episode featuring myself, Dr. Pierre Kory, Dr. Peter McCullough, and Dr. David Brownstein discussing the face-plant of the bivalent booster program.

Twitter, eat your heart out.

Password: NotFooled2022 (good for 1 year).