Why Have a Number of Elite US Universities Announced Mandatory Bivalent Vaccines For All Undergraduate Students?
Disturbing New Data Has Emerged On Bivalent COVID-19 Vaccines
Why Have a Number of Elite US Universities Announced Mandatory Bivalent Vaccines For All Undergraduate Students?
Disturbing New Data Has Emerged On Bivalent COVID-19 Vaccines
Rav Arora writing for Radical Media
Last month, The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) published a new Moderna-sponsored study on the efficacy of the initial bivalent vaccine targeting BA.1 in comparison to the original monovalent booster.
The primary focus of the study—antibody titers—shows seemingly positive results. In all groups (Omicron being of greatest interest), the bivalent shot created higher antibody levels than the monovalent booster shot.
Based on this finding, the authors conclude, “The bivalent omicron-containing vaccine mRNA-1273.214 elicited neutralising antibody responses against omicron that were superior to those with mRNA-1273.”
Not so fast.
There are a number of serious concerns from the study. First, there was no statistically significant difference in incidence of COVID-19 cases in either arm. In fact, the bivalent group had a higher number of COVID-19 cases compared to the original booster.
As Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg noted, in the group without natural immunity, the bivalent arm had three times as many cases as the monovalent arm.
The study sample is quite small (812 participants), so it’s entirely unclear if the bivalent shot confers any protection or not.
The demonstrated superior antibody levels and seeming ineffectiveness against infection may appear contradictory, but the two metrics are loosely connected. There’s no clear understanding of what levels of antibodies are needed to confer SARS-CoV-2 immunity.
Even though the nebulous endpoint of increased antibody titers was used in the initial Moderna and Pfizer trials, both the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention explicitly recommend against testing antibodies to determine immunity post-vaccination. Moreover, Pfizer has conceded there is “no established correlate of protection” between antibody levels and immunity. Needless to say, reams of real-world data also show the unreliability of broadly deploying vaccines based on antibody studies.
More alarming than unknown bivalent effectiveness is the mounting evidence of “immune imprinting”—a concern initially flagged by the European Union regulators.
As vaccine proponent Eric Topol highlights in his unusually sober-minded analysis of the bivalent shots, there is a “disturbing trend of much lower antibody induction vs Omicron compared to that mounted against the ancestral (original) strain.”
Topol writes, “[I]t’s certainly a concern that there are not much higher levels of neutralizing antibodies, with this metric considered as a surrogate marker for protection vs severe Covid.”
Another major problem of the study was its assessment of “safety”—one of its “primary objectives.” No “evident safety concerns” were found, but again, the sample size of the study was in the hundreds. The most documented serious adverse event—heart inflammation—occurs, at most, at a rate of 1 in 1,800 in young males. The bivalent arm of the study contained a mere 437 participants (of which 179 were men).
Recall this study tests the BA.1-targeted vaccine. The White House is currently pushing the new BA.5-targeted shot—for which we have no human data—on all Americans 12 and over.
The concerns based on initial human data in the earlier bivalent vaccine are doubly alarming given all the unknowns with this novel version being blindly distributed to the public. If the White House and FDA have become completely corrupted, one may expect public health experts regularly appearing on top media networks to sound the alarm. However, that doesn’t seem to be the case.
While a few are starting to wake up, the most influential vaccine promoters continue to plunge into collective psychosis. Vaccine scientist and regular CNN guest Dr. Peter Hotez has repeatedly (as recent as a two days ago) urged all Americans — especially the healthy and young — to get the new pre-experimental bivalent shot.
When I personally challenged his reckless recommendations on Twitter, he responded with alarmist claims of “long Covid” (which has been hardly defined) and “significant hospitalisations and deaths” in the young. Such preposterous statements are not even worth refuting, but to state the obvious, the Covid death rate before Omicron — when the virus was deadlier — was just over 0.001% in unvaccinated 30-year-olds.
For unvaccinated 20-year-olds, the risk of death from Covid before Omicron was roughly 0.0001%. If young, healthy people “should” take dramatic measures to prevent such a low risk, then they ought to never drive on the road, play contact sports, or take doctor-prescribed medications (all things which likely pose a higher risk).
However, public health experts such as Dr. Hotez appear to have the most power and influence in American institutions.
A number of elite universities have announced mandatory bivalent vaccines for all undergraduate students. Harvard recently updated their compulsory vaccine policy:
“Harvard requires all students to be up-to-date on their COVID-19 vaccinations including the bivalent Omicron-specific COVID-19 booster. Students who are not up-to-date on their COVID vaccine, or other required vaccinations, will have a hold placed on their enrollment.”
The institutional coercion of untested medical interventions is the darkest new trend in American society. The tyranny of compassion and safety began with “temporary” lockdowns, school closures, and business shutdowns. Now, it has metastasised into a wretched monster of human rights violations and state-enforced Big Pharma experimentation that would have repulsed the core ethics of everyone prior to 2020.
This is the new “normal.”
Let us hope the evidence against mass administration of updated mRNA vaccines becomes incontrovertible to the point that vaccine zealots don’t have a modicum of defence.