The COVID-19 vaccines have shown themselves ineffective on Delta and Omicron variant and studies also show that they can be harmful especially in COVID recovered persons (persons naturally immune)
by Paul Alexander
Layering vaccine immunity on top of natural immunity (COVID-recovered) can cause adverse effects and places one at elevated risk of being hospitalized
The accumulated research evidence is now clear (well over 30 studies and pieces of evidence) that the COVID-19 vaccines and particularly the Pfizer vaccine, is ineffective with dramatic lost effectiveness several months after administration (see Brownstone op-ed). There is also clear indication that the vaccinated person can become infected post vaccination, can harbor very high loads of virus, and can even transmit. You may wish to refer to Chau et al., Riemersma et al., Shitrit et al., Singanayagam et al., and Salvatore et al. Deaths post vaccine has also raised serious concern.
Pfizer’s CEO Bourla responded by calling for a 3rd booster and even 4th booster but I argue it is far more serious than this when we are seeing pathophysiological alterations and ramifications from the vaccines. It appears that the COVID-recovered person who has acquired natural exposure immunity is at risk for adverse effects if then vaccinated. Layering vaccine immunity on top of natural immunity seems to be a problem and we argue must be considered and explained as a potential risk to the intended vaccinee. At the very least the person should be allowed to exercise their natural immunity given strong Israeli evidence that vaccine immunity is inferior to natural immunity and even vaccine on top of natural immunity confers no additional significant benefit.
What do we know about the impact of the COVID vaccines on the vaccinee’s physiological responses and if these are problematic or pathological? Well, Liu et al. reported immunological alterations in people following COVID-19 vaccination. Results indicated that vaccination, in addition to stimulating the generation of neutralizing antibodies, “also influenced various health indicators including those related to diabetes, renal dysfunction, cholesterol metabolism, coagulation problems, electrolyte imbalance, in a way as if the volunteers experienced an infection.” In other words, the changes seen in vaccinated persons indicated that the vaccine’s effects mirrored the infection’s effects. Researchers reported that “reduction of CD8+ T cells and increase in classic monocyte contents were exemplary” and that “it is imperative to consider the potential long-term impact of vaccination to certain medical conditions or to general human health.”
Baos et al. also reported on the negative effect of the second dose of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine in a significant percentage of individuals with previous COVID infection. “Humoral immune responses were evaluated in 197 individuals, 98 with a previous COVID-19 infection (PI) and 99 who were infection-naïve (NI).” Researchers reported that “this is the first time that an adverse effect of the second dose is described.” They also discussed the importance of determining the serological response just before the second vaccine dose. In some of these subjects (especially COVID-recovered), it would “probably not be necessary (it may even be adverse) to administer the second dose of the vaccine.”
Mathioudakis et al. looked at the safety, tolerability and reactogenicity of available COVID-19 vaccines in different recipient groups. The reported on 2,002 respondents, of whom 26.6% had prior COVID-19 infection (68.8% laboratory confirmed). “Prior COVID-19 infection was associated with increased risk of any side effect (risk ratio 1.08, 95% confidence intervals [1.05-1.11]), fever (2.24 [1.86-2.70]), breathlessness (2.05 [1.28-3.29]), flu-like illness (1.78 [1.51-2.10]), fatigue (1.34 [1.20-1.49]) and local reactions (1.10 [1.06-1.15]). It was also associated with increased risk of severe side effects, leading to hospital care (1.56 [1.14-2.12]).”
Krammer et al. examined spike antibody responses and increased reactogenicity in seropositive individuals after a single dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine. They reported that the antibody response to the first vaccine dose in individuals with pre-existing immunity “is equal to or even exceeds the titers found in naïve individuals after the second dose…they also show that the reactogenicity is significantly higher in individuals who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the past.”
Raw et al. studied whether individuals with prior history of COVID-19 were more likely to experience AEs after BNT162b2/Pfizer vaccination, than those without previous COVID-19, and whether COVID-19-vaccination interval influenced AE severity. Researchers reported that of 974 respondents (81% female, mean age 48), “265 (27%) reported previous COVID-19 infection. Within this group (symptoms median 8.9 months pre-vaccination), 30 (11%) complained of Long-COVID. The proportion reporting one moderate/severe symptom was higher in the previous COVID-19 group (56% v 47%, OR=1.5 [95%CI, 1.1–2.0], p=.009), with fever, fatigue, myalgia-arthralgia and lymphadenopathy significantly more common.”
In closing, these results indicate that the vaccines have a potential adverse impact on the vaccinee (from mild to more severe), especially if already COVID-recovered. A policy change whereby only one dose is given in COVID-19 recovered persons would appear to be reasonable and optimal. It could reduce adverse impacts. Overall, the findings appear to associate prior COVID-19 recovered persons who then take COVID vaccines, with elevated incidence of vaccine side effects. This is problematical and warrants urgent study by the CDC and NIH to clarify the extent of this and how serious this is to the vaccinee. It is understood that the vaccine developers e.g. Pfizer and Moderna, did not study the vaccines for the proper and optimal duration of follow-up that could have definitively addressed these emergent concerns. The issue of adverse effects in prior recovered persons who are then vaccinated should have been studied in the registrational trials and acute study and surveillance is urgently needed now. These statements by me must not be taken as my endorsement or support for these vaccines given I have been on record indicating that they were never needed in the first place, were not properly safety tested, and are under no condition needed in healthy children who bring near statistical zero risk with a potent and functional innate immune system.