Dr. Paul Alexander's Brownstone review showing COVID gene injection vaccine platform fails (negative effectiveness) & rapidly waning immunity: Extensive Efficacy Studies that Rebuke Vaccine mandates
by Paul Alexander
Please see this review I iterate (hoping that the journals do not take down urls) & it is comprised of the studies & reports that show the COVID mRNA-DNA gene vaccine is a failure; FOR LAWYERS
59) Effectiveness of mRNA-1273 against infection and COVID-19 hospitalization with SARSCoV-2 Omicron subvariants: BA.1, BA.2, BA.2.12.1, BA.4, and BA.5, Tseng, 2022“While 3-dose VE against BA.1 infection was high and waned slowly, VE against BA.2, BA.2.12.1, BA.4, and BA.5 infection was initially moderate to high (61.0%-90.6% 14-30 days post third dose) and waned rapidly. The 4-dose VE against infection with BA.2, BA.2.12.1, and BA.4 ranged between 64.3%-75.7%, and was low (30.8%) against BA.5 14-30 days post fourth dose, disappearing beyond 90 days for all subvariants.”
60) Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines Over 13 Months Covering the Period of the Emergence of the Omicron Variant in the Swedish Population, Yu, 2022“Two vaccine doses showed long-lasting good protection against infection before Omicron (VE were above 85% for all time intervals), but less protection against Omicron infection (dropped to 43% by week four and no protection by week 14). Similarly, VE against hospitalization was high and stable before Omicron, but showed clear waning during the Omicron period, although VE estimates were substantially higher (above 80% to week 25, dropping to 40% by week 40) than against infection.”
61) Long-term COVID-19 booster effectiveness by infection history and clinical vulnerability and immune imprinting, Chemaitelly, 2022“Booster effectiveness relative to primary series was 41.1% (95% CI: 40.0-42.1%) against infection and 80.5% (95% CI: 55.7-91.4%) against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19, over one-year follow-up after the booster. Among persons clinically vulnerable to severe COVID-19, effectiveness was 49.7% (95% CI: 47.8-51.6%) against infection and 84.2% (95% CI: 58.8-93.9%) against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19. Effectiveness against infection was highest at 57.1% (95% CI: 55.9-58.3%) in the first month after the booster but waned thereafter and was modest at only 14.4% (95% CI: 7.3-20.9%) by the sixth month. In the seventh month and thereafter, coincident with BA.4/BA.5 and BA.2.75* subvariant incidence, effectiveness was progressively negative reaching -20.3% (95% CI: -55.0-29.0%) after one year of follow-up. Similar levels and patterns of protection were observed irrespective of prior infection status, clinical vulnerability, or type of vaccine (BNT162b2 versus mRNA-1273).”
62) Alarming antibody evasion properties of rising SARS-CoV-2 BQ and XBB subvariants, Wang, 2022“BQ.1, BQ.1.1, XBB, and XBB.1 are the most resistant SARS-CoV-2 variants to date;
Serum neutralization was markedly reduced, including with the bivalent booster;
All clinical monoclonal antibodies were rendered inactive against these variants;
The ACE2 affinity of these variants were similar to their parental strains;
The BQ and XBB subvariants of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron are now rapidly expanding, possibly due to altered antibody evasion properties deriving from their additional spike mutations. Here, we report that neutralization of BQ.1, BQ.1.1, XBB, and XBB.1 by sera from vaccinees and infected persons was markedly impaired, including sera from individuals boosted with a WA1/BA.5 bivalent mRNA vaccine. Titers against BQ and XBB subvariants were lower by 13-81-fold and 66-155-fold, respectively, far beyond what had been observed to date. Monoclonal antibodies capable of neutralizing the original Omicron variant were largely inactive against these new subvariants, and the responsible individual spike mutations were identified. These subvariants were found to have similar ACE2-binding affinities as their predecessors. Together, our findings indicate that BQ and XBB subvariants present serious threats to current COVID-19 vaccines, render inactive all authorized antibodies, and may have gained dominance in the population because of their advantage in evading antibodies.”
63) Low neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.2.75.2, BQ.1.1, and XBB.1 by parental mRNA vaccine or a BA.5-bivalent booster, Kurhade, 2022“The newly emerged SARS-CoV-2 Omicron sublineages, including the BA.2-derived BA.2.75.2 and the BA.5-derived BQ.1.1 and XBB.1, have accumulated additional spike mutations that may affect vaccine effectiveness. Here we report neutralizing activities of three human serum panels collected from individuals 23–94 days after dose 4 of a parental mRNA vaccine, 14–32 days after a BA.5-bivalent-booster from individuals with 2–4 previous doses of parental mRNA vaccine, or 15–32 days after a BA.5-bivalent-booster from individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and 2–4 doses of parental mRNA vaccine. The results showed that a BA.5-bivalent-booster elicited a high neutralizing titer against BA.4/5 measured at 14- to 32-day post-boost; however, the BA.5-bivalent-booster did not produce robust neutralization against the newly emerged BA.2.75.2, BQ.1.1, or XBB.1. Previous infection significantly enhanced the magnitude and breadth of BA.5-bivalent-booster-elicited neutralization. Our data support a vaccine update strategy that future boosters should match newly emerged circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants.”
64) Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Bivalent Vaccine, Shrestha, 2022 “A retrospective cohort study conducted at the Cleveland Clinic Health System (CCHS) in the United States.
Researchers included employees on the very day that the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine was first available.
‘Protection provided by vaccination (analyzed as a time-dependent covariate) was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression.’
Findings focused on 51,011 employees of which 20,689 (41%) had a prior documented COVID-19 infection (episode), and whereby 42,064 (83%) received at least two doses of the vaccine.
‘The majority of infections in Ohio were caused by the BA.4 or BA.5 lineages of the Omicron variant during the first 10 weeks of the study, based on SARS-CoV-2 variant monitoring data available from the Ohio Department of Health. By December, the BQ.1, BQ.1.1, and BF.7 lineages accounted for a substantial proportion of the infections.’
‘By the end of the study, 10804 (21%) were bivalent vaccine boosted. The bivalent vaccine was the Pfizer vaccine in 9595 (89%) and the Moderna vaccine in the remaining 1178. Altogether, 2452 employees (5%) acquired COVID-19 during the 13 weeks of the study.’
‘The calculated overall vaccine effectiveness from the model was 30% (95% C.I., 20% – 39%)…when the Omicron BA.4/BA.5 lineages were the predominant circulating strains.’
‘The multivariable analyses also found that, the more recent the last prior COVID-19 episode was the lower the risk of COVID-19, and that the greater the number of vaccine doses previously received the higher the risk of COVID-19.”
65) Effectiveness of second booster compared to first booster and protection conferred by previous SARS CoV-2 infection against symptomatic Omicron BA.2 and BA.4/5 in France, Tamandjou, 2023“We included symptomatic ≥60 years old individuals tested for SARSCoV-2 in March 21-October 30, 2022. Compared to a 181-210 days old first booster, a second booster restored protection with an effectiveness of 39% [95%CI: 38% – 41%], 7-30 days postvaccination This gain in protection was lower than the one observed with the first booster, at equal time points since vaccination.”
66) Extended SARS-CoV-2 RBD booster vaccination induces humoral and cellular immune tolerance in mice, Gao, 2023i) Our findings demonstrate potential risks with the continuous use of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine boosters, providing immediate implications for the global COVID-19 vaccination enhancement strategies.
ii) Whether such re-establishment of vaccine-induced immune response could be repeated by continued application of boosters is being questioned, yet largely unknown at present. Here, we compared the effects of repeated RBD vaccine boosters with a conventional immunization course to those with an extended vaccination strategy, in a Balb/c mice model.
iii) We found that the protective effects from the humoral immunity and cellular immunity established by the conventional immunization were both profoundly impaired during the extended vaccination course. Specifically, extended vaccination not only fully impaired the amount and the neutralizing efficacy of serum RBD-specific antibodies, but also shortened the long-term humoral memory.
iv) This is associated with immune tolerance in germinal center response, along with decreased numbers of spleen germinal center B and Tfh cells. Moreover, we demonstrated that extended immunization reduced the functional responses of CD4+ and CD8+T cells, restrained the population of memory T cells, and up-regulated the expression of PD-1 and LAG-3 in Te sub-type cells.
v) An increased percentile of Treg cells was also observed, accompanied by significant elevation of IL-10 production. Together, we provided crucial evidence that repetitive administration of RBD booster vaccines may negatively impact the immune response established by a conventional vaccination course and promote adaptive immune tolerance.’
vi) Continued vaccination promoted the formation of a prominent adaptive immune tolerance and profoundly impaired the established immune response with the conventional course, evidenced by significant reductions in antigen specific antibody and T cell response, a loss of immune memory and form of immunosuppression micro-environment.