Consistent with similar findings in many prior studies [3,8,10,12,18–20], a higher number of prior vaccine doses was associated with a higher risk of COVID-19. ... Thus, the short-term protection provided by a COVID-19 vaccine comes with a risk of increased susceptibility to COVID-19 in the future.

stickdog

Even the NY Times has finally admitted unsafe.

See this pre-print and its footnotes 3, 10, 12, 19, and 20 reproduced below, as well as the omicron infection experiences of you and everyone you know, for a full confirmation of ineffective.

Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Bivalent Vaccine

... effectiveness was not demonstrated when the XBB lineages were dominant.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccine Boosting in Previously Infected or Vaccinated Individuals

In multivariable analysis, boosting was independently associated with lower risk of COVID-19 among those vaccinated but not previously infected (hazard ratio [HR], .43; 95% confidence interval [CI], .41–.46) as well as those previously infected (HR, .66; 95% CI, .58–.76). Among those previously infected, receipt of 2 compared with 1 dose of vaccine was associated with higher risk of COVID-19 (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.21–1.97).

Risk of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) among those up-to-date and not up-to-date on COVID-19 vaccination by US CDC criteria

Results

COVID-19 occurred in 1475 (3%) of 48 344 employees during the 100-day study period. The cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was lower in the “not up-to-date” than the “up-to-date” state. On multivariable analysis, being “up-to-date” was not associated with lower risk of COVID-19 (HR, 1.05; 95% C.I., 0.88–1.25; P-value, 0.58). Results were very similar when those 65 years and older were only considered “up-to-date” after 2 doses of the bivalent vaccine.

Conclusions

Since the XBB lineages became dominant, adults “up-to-date” on COVID-19 vaccination by the CDC definition do not have a lower risk of COVID-19 than those “not up-to-date”, bringing into question the value of this risk classification definition.

Rate of SARS-CoV-2 Reinfection During an Omicron Wave in Iceland

The probability of reinfection increased with time from the initial infection (odds ratio of 18 months vs 3 months, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.18-2.08) (Figure) and was higher among persons who had received 2 or more doses compared with 1 dose or less of vaccine (odds ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.13-1.78). Defining reinfection after 30 or more days or 90 or more days did not qualitatively change the results.

History of primary-series and booster vaccination and protection against Omicron reinfection

The history of primary-series vaccination enhanced immune protection against Omicron reinfection, but history of booster vaccination compromised protection against Omicron reinfection.

stickdog

Excerpt:

Harvard researchers have ceased a long-running effort to conduct a small geoengineering experiment in the stratosphere, following repeated delays and public criticism.

In a university statement released on March 18, Frank Keutsch, the principal investigator on the project, said he is “no longer pursuing the experiment.”

The basic concept behind solar geoengineering is that the world might be able to counteract global warming by spraying tiny particles in the atmosphere that could scatter sunlight.

The plan for the Harvard experiments was to launch a high-altitude balloon, equipped with propellers and sensors, that could release a few kilograms of calcium carbonate, sulfuric acid or other materials high above the planet. It would then turn around and fly through the plume to measure how widely the particles disperse, how much sunlight they reflect and other variables. The aircraft will now be repurposed for stratospheric research unrelated to solar geoengineering, according to the statement.

The vast majority of solar geoengineering research to date has been carried out in labs or computer models. The so-called stratospheric controlled perturbation experiment (SCoPEx) was expected to be the first such scientific effort conducted in the stratosphere. But it proved controversial from the start and, in the end, others may have beaten them across the line of deliberately releasing reflective materials into that layer of the atmosphere. (The stratosphere stretches from approximately 10 to 50 kilometers above the ground.)

...

Proponents of solar geoengineering research argue we should investigate the concept because it may significantly reduce the dangers of climate change. Further research could help scientists better understand the potential benefits, risks and tradeoffs between various approaches.

But critics argue that even studying the possibility of solar geoengineering eases the societal pressure to cut greenhouse gas emissions. They also fear such research could create a slippery slope that increases the odds that nations or rogue actors will one day deploy it, despite the possibility of dangerous side-effects, including decreasing precipitation and agricultural output in some parts of the world.

...

stickdog

Excerpt:

...

We were all called lunatics, hobby virologists, conspiracy theorists and worse for our doubts that Covid was all that dangerous, that lockdowns were worth it, that mask mandates made any sense, and that excluding the unvaccinated from public life was remotely justifiable. A lot of us were banned and ostracised for saying these things. The RKI release shows that our public health managers were having exactly the same discussions in private the whole time. Our politicians told us that all of this lunacy was necessary because we had to FoLlOw ThE ScIenCe. In fact the scientists were mere tools of the prior political decision to force this entire pandemic theatre upon us; they functioned merely to lend the pandemic policies about which they themselves nourished hidden doubts a pseudoscientific aura.

The worst thing is that nothing will come of this, and nothing will come of the still greater revelations likely to follow either.

stickdog

Excerpt:

The State Department is so unhappy a newspaper published details about where it’s been spending your taxes, it’s threatened to only show a congressional committee its records in camera until it gets a “better understanding of how the Committee will utilize this sensitive information.” Essentially, Tony Blinken is threatening to take his transparency ball home unless details about what censorship programs he’s sponsoring stop appearing in papers like the Washington Examiner.

A year ago the Examiner published “Disinformation, Inc.”, a series by investigative reporter Gabe Kaminsky describing how the State Department was backing a UK-based agency that creates digital blacklists for disfavored media outlets. Your taxes helped fund the Global Disinformation Index, or GDI, which proudly touts among its services an Orwellian horror called the Dynamic Exclusion List, a digital time-out corner where at least 2,000 websites were put on blast as unsuitable for advertising, “thus disrupting the ad-funded disinformation business model.”

The culprit was the Global Engagement Center, a little-known State Department entity created in Barack Obama’s last year in office and a surprise focus of Twitter Files reporting. The GEC grew out of a counter-terrorism agency called the CSCC and has a mission to “counter” any messaging, foreign or domestic as it turns out, that they see as “undermining or influencing the policies, security, or stability of the United States.” The GEC-funded GDI rated ten conservative sites as most “risky” and put the Examiner on its “exclusion” list, while its ten sites rated at the “lowest level of disinformation” included Buzzfeed, which famously published the Steele Dossier knowing it contained errors and is now out of business.

In an effort to find out what other ventures GEC was funding — an absurd 36 of 39 2018 contractors were redacted even in an Inspector General’s report — the House Small Business Committee wrote the State Department last June asking for basic information about where the public’s money was being spent. State and GEC stalled until December 3 of last year, when it finally produced a partial list of recipients. Although House Republicans asked for an “unredacted list of all GEC grant recipients and associated award numbers” from 2019 through the current year, the list the Committee received was missing “dozens” of contractors, including some listed on USASpending.com.

...

In response to the outrage of this disclosure, the State Department sent its letter threatening in camera sessions until it gets a better “understanding” of how the Committee will use its “sensitive” information. That’s Beltway-ese for “We wouldn’t mind knowing the Examiner’s sources.”

About that: the State letter wrote that the Examiner’s records were “reportedly obtained from the Committee,” and included a footnote and a link to a Kaminsky story, implying that the Examiner reported that it got the records from the Committee. But the paper said nothing about the source of the documents, which as anyone who’s ever covered these types of stories knows, could have come from any number of places. It’s a small but revealing detail about current petulance levels at State.

“Anti-disinformation” work is not exactly hypersonic missile construction. There’s no legitimate reason for it to be kept from the public, especially since it’s increasingly clear its programs target American media companies and American media consumers, seemingly in violation of the State Department’s mission. The requested information is also not classified, making the delays and tantrums more ridiculous.

...

stickdog