Boosting With 2 Doses Increases The Risk Of COVID Infection By Nearly 2X
New data the media is ironically trying to spin to promote boosting. You won't believe this
There was a new study released on a preprint server named medRXiv evaluating the protection against COVID reinfection conferred by 1 or 2 booster doses of an mRNA vaccine after either natural infection, or vaccination. Ironically, the results were conflicting. Now, many mainstream media sources are twisting the data to manipulate people into believing vaccine induced immunity is wholly better, or more protective than natural immunity while this paper harbors something more ominous that the media fails to speak of. The 3 bullet points below will delineate the following sections of this publication:
Data from the new study, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccine Boosting in Persons Already Protected by Natural or Vaccine-Induced Immunity
How the media is cherry picking data from this study to manipulate people into boosting
Confounders/problems with this study
The data
All important information from this paper will be broken down in bullet points below. To begin, it is important to note a few things about this retrospective cohort study before diving in. First, all subjects were from Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, one of the larger healthcare organizations in the US. Next, only a small amount of data in this paper accounts for subjects studied when Omicron was first declared a VOC (variant of concern) verses Delta. Finally, only mRNA vaccines were used (Pfizer or Moderna). Nonetheless, here are the particulars:
39,766 total employees were examined & only 14,267 qualified ⬇️
8,037 (20% of 39,776) were previously infected and ⬇️
6,230 (16% of 39,776) were previously vaccinated
Boosting in those previously vaccinated was associated with a 57% reduced risk of COVID-19 infection (HR, .43; 95% CI, .41-.46)
Boosting with 1 dose in those having previous infection, was associated with a 33% reduced risk of COVID-19 infection (HR, .66; 95% CI, .58-.76), HOWEVER ⬇️
Boosting with 2 doses in those having previous infection, was associated with a nearly 2X increase in the risk of infection (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.21-1.97)
Media manipulation
Before we get into the devious nature of the media and how they’re twisting this data, a summary of the previous section with added context will be used to set the stage. To begin, there were 39,766 employees at Cleveland Clinic in Ohio who were examined in this study, of which 8,037 had immunity from prior infection, and 6,230 had immunity from being vaccinated. Next, boosting those vaccinated with 1 dose reduced the risk of subsequent COVID-19 infection by 57%, while individuals previously infected and boosted with 1 dose had a 33% reduced risk of infection. Moreover, boosting those having prior infection with 2 doses resulted in a nearly 2X increased risk of reinfection with COVID-19. Sounds crazy right? 2 boosters associated with a 2X increase in infection? You should have better immunity from 2 boosters instead of 1 or even none, correct? According to this study, no.
As you can see, things are not so simple. That said, the next point should be examined. That is, the media is using a small statistic from this study to push vaccine uptake. What statistic you ask? Well, you see, it’s tricky. There’s a data plot showing that people who received 2 doses of vaccine with no booster compared to other groups were at a higher risk of reinfection. The media’s response- you better get boosted because the original 2 doses aren’t enough (FIG. 1 📸). However, they fail to address a major fact in this study. That is, being naturally infected & non-boosted, or naturally immune & boosted, or vaccinated + boosted yield nearly the same protection from COVID-19 reinfection. What’s worse, being previously infected and boosted with 2 doses was associated with a nearly 2X increased risk of reinfection (FIG. 2 📸). Essentially, the media is cherry picking data, so please understand the power of natural immunity, and the problem that boosting with 2 doses after infection presents.
FIG. 1 📸
FIG. 2 📸
4 major Confounders/Problems with the study
There are certainly many holes in this study. It may even resemble swiss cheese more than a medical paper. You see, the issues herein are a testament to the broad reach of a medical data crisis which permeates throughout every corner of healthcare- including research. Then it is true this paper symbolically represents an illuminated check engine light, while the medical field is an automobile. With that out of the way, here are the confounders:
The study on booster effectiveness against reinfection is largely driven by Delta data, not Omicron. That alone makes this paper non-applicable to current times. In other words, it doesn’t matter that this paper shows boosting to be somewhat effective against Delta, we’re dealing with Omicron now
Aside from the fact this is a preprint and hasn’t been peer reviewed, epidemiologists and doctors are using it to push the vaccine+booster narrative despite 2 major conflictions. Specifically, 2 boosters were associated with a 2X increase in COVID reinfection, and being vaccinated without boosters wasn’t as protective as natural immunity
Regarding screening. “Previously infected” were defined as those who were confirmed positive with an NAAT test (A PCR LIKE TEST). In other words, this data doesn’t consider positive seroprevalence which could provide greater protection against reinfection. Seroprevalence is a maker of immunity which includes antibodies. As you could imagine, there were probably many people with previous immunity from multiple infections and that most certainly offsets the end results. Said differently, because this study doesn’t seek antibody levels in its participants, protection across both groups can’t be accurately accounted for because positive seroprevalence wasn’t controlled across both study arms (vaccinated vs unvaccinated). That makes the final results questionable at best
This study doesn’t take into account participants comorbidities. Individuals with more comorbidities have a stronger proclivity for reinfection while the younger + healthier people don’t. Yet again, another confounder that takes credibility away from this paper
Summary
Conclusions drawn about certain things from this data are irrefutable because the trends are just too strong. That said, even if confounders were accounted for, the results of SOME THINGS in this paper would be nearly the same. To give you an example, the trend on natural immunity being just as protective as vaccination. As you see in FIG 1 & 2 above, the results regarding previous infection are so substantial any adjustment would result in a nearly identical conclusion. Also, 2 boosters after natural immunity were associated with a nearly 2X increase risk of COVID reinfection with a high & exceptionally narrow confidence interval (95% CI, 1.21-1.97). As you can see the data don’t lie. So, now that you’ve seen the facts, do you still think it’s appropriate mainstream media outlets are cherry picking from this study?
LETS CONNECT: