Cleveland Clinic publishes study showing that mRNA jabs INCREASE covid risk with each subsequent “boost” by: Ethan Huff for Natural News
Every time a person gets injected with a covid “vaccine” or “booster,” his or her risk of testing “positive” for covid and later getting sick or dying increases substantially, according to a new study from the Cleveland Clinic.
The paper appeared on the pre-print server medRxiv, showing that getting “vaccinated” and “boosted” for covid with mRNA (messenger RNA) chemicals makes a person more – not less – prone to succumbing to injury or death.
The highest risk, unsurprisingly, exists in those who get three or more injections as opposed to just the first two or three.
Now is your chance to support Gospel News Network.
We love helping others and believe that’s one of the reasons we are chosen as Ambassadors of the Kingdom, to serve God’s children. We look to the Greatest Commandment as our Powering force.
“The association of increased risk of COVID-19 with higher numbers of prior vaccine doses in our study, was unexpected,” wrote the study’s authors, who include Nabin K. Shrestha, Patrick C. Burke, Amy S. Nowacki, James F. Simon, Amanda Hagen, and Steven M. Gordon.
For their research, the aforementioned looked at 51,011 Cleveland Clinic workers – the institution is massive – to see how well the new so-called “bivalent” mRNA injection is performing.
We are told that only 21 percent of the group’s 51,011 employee base took the bivalent shot, which was deemed to have an effectiveness rate of just 30 percent. Overall, five percent of all workers in the study contracted covid during the 13-week analysis period.
“Protection provided by vaccination (analyzed as a time-dependent covariate) was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression,” the study’s abstract explains. “The analysis was adjusted for the pandemic phase when the last prior COVID-19 episode occurred, and the number of prior vaccine doses received.”
Among the 51,011 employees evaluated, 41 percent had at least one previously documented case of covid while 83 percent had received at least two doses of a covid injection.
“In multivariable analysis, the bivalent vaccinated state was independently associated with lower risk of COVID-19 (HR, .70; 95% C.I., .61-.80), leading to an estimated vaccine effectiveness (VE) of 30% (95% CI, 20-39%),” the study further explains.
“Compared to last exposure to SARS-CoV-2 within 90 days, last exposure 6-9 months previously was associated with twice the risk of COVID-19, and last exposure 9-12 months previously with 3.5 times the risk.”
All in all, it was determined that the shots do not work as claimed. None of them seem to prevent infection, and many of the people who take them end up getting sick or dying. So much for “safe and effective.” (Related: Remember in 2014 when the Cleveland Clinic started using Traditional Chinese Medicine [TCM] to treat patients?)
Cleveland Clinic adds disclaimer to study about it not being “peer reviewed” – because the results defy the official narrative
The fact that medRxiv even allowed this new study to appear on its pre-print server at all is a feat in and of itself, considering the platform has a new policy against studies that contradict the official story about covid “vaccines.”
Perhaps the paper was allowed because the Cleveland Clinic included a special disclaimer that calls into question its own findings. It reads:
“This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.”
The suggestion, of course, is that peer review is an essential component of “valid” science, even though it is an inherently corrupt and worthless process that is not what the scientific community has made it out to be.
“So, NOW is it fair to say these are NOT ‘vaccines’ in any sense of the word???” asked a commenter in response to these latest scientific revelations.
“How many professionals, like Dr. Malone, did Twitter and Facebook censor for saying this early on?” responded another.
