SEARCH
Sebastian Rushworth MD: COVID: How long does vaccine based immunity last?
Related: gear, gears of the machine, junk science, Medical Industrial Complex, natural immunity, SARS-CoV-2 aka COVID-19 aka Coronavirus, Sebastian Rushworth MD, vaccination
re: Sebastian Rushworth MD: How Well do Doctors Understand Probability?
re: Sebastian Rushworth MD: How to understand scientific studies (in health and medicine)
re: Sebastian Rushworth MD
Real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it.
This article has a very aspect for me and my family right now (including my double-jabbed wife), but I won’t go into that until I know more.
Article below from Sebastian Rushworth MD apropos the Trump COVID “vaccines” and particularly the Pfizer offering has some statements sure to make heads explode:
...at the six month time point it was no longer possible to detect a statistically significant effect of vaccination on risk of hospitalization or death
...By the nine month mark, the Pfizer vaccine is no longer offering any protection whatsoever against symptomatic COVID-19.
Unlike the short-term protection offered by the vaccines, the protection generated by infection (natural immunity) has been shown to be both durable and broad, in spite of junk science claims to the contrary produced by the CDC.
That would explain a lot as to why COVID is still going strong. Let the doctors debate, but Sebastian Rushworth MD is more credible than most IMO.
See also: A Review and Autopsy of Two COVID Immunity Studies. The CDC has little credibility these days when they keep producing crap studies to support the narrative, rather than doing real science.
Sebastian Rushworth MD: COVID: How long does vaccine based immunity last?
2021-11-05, emphasis added.
It’s unfortunate that the drug companies decided to end their trials early, by giving active COVID vaccine to the members of the placebo group after just a few months. It means that there is no long term follow-up of the COVID vaccines from randomized trials, and there never will be. This means that we are instead forced to rely entirely on observational data as we try to understand how safe and effective the vaccines are over the longer term.
That is why a recent study out of Sweden is so very interesting. It is currenly available as a pre-print and can be found here. The purpose of the study was to determine how effective the vaccines are at protecting against COVID over the longer term (i.e. after more than a few months). This was a registry based study, so it’s not surprising that it is coming out of Sweden. Sweden is generally acknowledged as being better than any other country at collecting and sorting large quantities of population data and using it to produce these types of studies.
...As would be expected, the vaccines were very effective at preventing symptomatic COVID around two months out from vaccination. This is what the randomized trials showed, and it’s the reason the vaccines were approved for use. Overall, the reduction in relative risk at 31-60 days out from vaccination was 89%.
However, after those first two months, there was a rapid decline in efficacy. At four to six months, the vaccines were only reducing the relative risk of infection by 48%!
This is pretty interesting when we consider that governments had initially set the bar for approving the vaccines at a 50% relative risk reduction. So, if the trials had been required to run for six months before presenting results instead of only running for two months, then the vaccines would have been considered too ineffective to be worth bothering with, an would never have been approved.
...One vaccine did still provide a better than 50% relative risk reduction at six months – the Moderna vaccine... no longer approved for use in people under the age of 30 here in Sweden.
...
When we go further out than six months, things get even more depressing. By the nine month mark, the Pfizer vaccine is no longer offering any protection whatsoever against symptomatic COVID-19. ...
People over the age of 80 initially show a good response to the vaccine, with a 73% reduction in relative risk of disease at one to two months out from vaccination. However this drops to only 50% at two to four months, and by six months there is no benefit whatsoever. Even for the middle aged (50-64 years), who have better functioning immune systems and who should therefore respond more strongly to the vaccines, the vaccines are completely ineffective at preventing symptomatic disease by the four to six months mark. The only group for whom the vaccines are more than 50% effective by the four month mark is people under the age of 50 (for whom effectiveness at four to six months is 51%).
...
At one to two months out from vaccination, the vaccines provided a 91% reduction in risk of hospitalization or death. By four to six months, that had dropped to 74%. And from six months out, the reduction was down to 42%, although the difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated group was no longer statistically significant. In other words, at the six month time point it was no longer possible to detect a statistically significant effect of vaccination on risk of hospitalization or death.
...
As I see it, there are two possible explanations for the rapidly declining effectiveness of the vaccines. The first is that it’s due to the limited immunity produced by the vaccines themselves, and the second is that it’s due to the continued evolution of the virus and in particular the rise of the delta variant. If the second reason is true, then there is no reason whatsoever to give people boosters, because the boosters won’t do anything to improve immunity.
If the first reason is true, then there is a case to be made for boosters, although it feels pretty absurd to give everyone a booster every four months to protect against a virus that for most people is little more than a cold, that 99,8% of infected people will survive, and for which there is now massive natural population immunity, thanks to all the people who have already had covid. Unlike the short-term protection offered by the vaccines, the protection generated by infection has been shown to be both durable and broad, in spite of junk science claims to the contrary produced by the CDC. There is however a pretty good case to be made for regular boosting of the multi-morbid elderly every four months, preferentially with the Moderna vaccine.
...
WIND: looking more and more like a pandemic of the vaccinated?
If these results hold, then symptomatic vaccinated people could now be a significant if not primary vector for COVID spread.
By the nine month mark, the Pfizer vaccine is no longer offering any protection whatsoever against symptomatic covid-19”.
...at the six month time point it was no longer possible to detect a statistically significant effect of vaccination on risk of hospitalization or death.
Unlike the short-term protection offered by the vaccines, the protection generated by infection (natural immunity) has been shown to be both durable and broad, in spite of junk science claims to the contrary produced by the CDC.
That doesn’t mean the vaccines have no value/benefit in the short term. But it does mean that the brutal totalitarian social policies have no rational basis in ignoring (at the least) natural immunity.
And it might mean (TBD) that natural immunity is far preferable. I’d like to see a similar study out of Sweden on that account.
And here’s more on this issue, this time in the USA:
The Epoch Times: Effectiveness of 2 of 3 COVID-19 Vaccines Used in US Drops Below 50 Percent After 6 Months: Study
The effectiveness of the three COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States has declined in recent months, with protection against infection falling under 50 percent for two of them after six months, according to a new study.
Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine dropped to 58 percent in September from 89.2 percent effectiveness in March, researchers found. During the same time frame, Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine fell to 43.3 percent from 86.9 percent, and Johnson & Johnson’s shot declined to 13.1 percent from 86.4 percent.
Dr. Stephen Hahn, head of the Food and Drug Administration during the final portion of the Trump administration, said last year that the agency wouldn’t authorize COVID-19 vaccines that weren’t at least 50 percent effective against infection.
...
WIND: give it 7 or 8 months, and it’s like that even the Moderna vaccine (a much stronger does than the others) would not meet the stated minimum requirement.
Should the underperforming “vaccines” be deauthorized? Or should we move the goalposts and keep them? The claim is that they save lives, and they sure seem to. But what of the contradictions inherent in the efficacy cutoff, especially in light of the therapeutics about to debut?
