Despite clear, substantial evidence that vaccines do not prevent the spread of the virus, administrators have steadfastly refused to reverse course on the mandates. Whether out of a desire to avoid admitting they were wrong or a willful disregard for reality, these destructive policies have continued to affect tens of millions of people. Now a new preprint study involving a systematic review and secondary data analysis conducted by Italian researchers has attempted to academically measure the effectiveness of Omicron vaccines. While many have acknowledged that the two-dose vaccination series no longer protects against symptomatic infection, as recently as December 2021, Dr. Fauci claimed that the boosters were 75% effective in preventing symptoms caused by Omicron. The researcher’s results do not bode well for the nation’s top public health “expert” and those who appeal to him to justify their vague mandates. In direct contradiction to Fauci and other “experts”, findings from the study suggest less than 20% vaccine effectiveness against infection and less than 25% against symptomatic disease after only a few months: “We found a remarkable escape of the immune system associated with Omicron infection and symptomatic disease after both two and three doses. The half-life of protection against symptomatic infection provided by two doses was estimated to be in the range of 178-456 days for Delta and between 66 and 73 days for Omicron. Booster doses were found to restore VE to levels comparable to those obtained immediately after the second dose. However, a rapid decline in booster VE against Omicron was observed, with less than 20% VE against infection and less than 25% VE against symptomatic disease at 9 months after booster. It is important to note that the FDA’s threshold for approval of COVID vaccines was 50% effectiveness in preventing the disease. Not only is the initial two-dose series unable to maintain this pattern, but the booster dose, which Fauci said was to “keep people healthy,” is rapidly weakening to half that rate against symptomatic disease. Notably, their review of data excluded studies that measured antibody levels to calculate effectiveness, given that the FDA approves vaccines for young children based on antibody production: “Regulators allowed vaccine makers to infer efficacy by demonstrating that vaccines could induce antibody levels similar to those that were protective in teenagers and young adults, a concept known as immune bridging. This helped speed up testing.” Instead of the FDA desperately hoping that antibody levels would lead to high efficacy rates, this research demonstrates the exact opposite. Also remember that Moderna claimed its vaccines were “100% effective” in teenagers, and Fauci said in an interview that they were “almost 100% effective.” In light of this, it is impossible to reasonably defend enhancement orders for healthy students or employees based on the “protection of the health and welfare of others.” There is little to no protection against contamination with dominant variants, demolishing any pretense of need for commands. But somehow it seems doubtful that any of the supposed “experts” or their media partners will reconsider their earlier statements in light of new research showing that their assessments were hopelessly wrong. Follow Ian Miller on Twitter: @ianmSC
