Omicron-specific booster shots from Moderna and Pfizer weren’t significantly better than the original COVID-19 boosters from both drug companies in two small studies that compared how they fared against the most common variants circulating in the United States.

 

Both the original and latest boosters caused antibodies in the human body to surge to fight off the dominant coronavirus variant, BA.5. The newer shots performed marginally better, but researchers said it probably wouldn’t make a difference.

 

The studies by researchers from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Columbia University, and the University of Michigan are the first to compare the original messenger RNA boosters against the newly authorized “bivalent boosters” in human blood samples.

...

Earlier this month, Pfizer said in a press release that the bivalent booster spurred a “substantial increase” in antibodies targeting BA.4/BA.5 one week after vaccination and that the shot “is anticipated to provide better protection” against those viruses than the original one. The firm plans to share additional data in the coming weeks."

 

(more)

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/omicron-boosters-not-much-better-against-variants-than-the-originals-say-two-small-studies/ar-AA13niLZ

 

FDA says two studies showing omicron boosters weren’t much better than old Covid shots were too small to come to any conclusions

 

The Food and Drug Administration said two studies this week showing that the new omicron boosters weren’t that much better than the old shots were too small to come to any real conclusions.

...

Dr. Peter Marks, head of the FDA’s vaccine division, said the studies are small and subject to limitations. Data from larger well-controlled studies are expected in the near future, he said. Pfizer and Moderna are conducting clinical trials on the new boosters and are expected to provide data later this year."

 

(more)

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/28/fda-says-two-studies-showing-omicron-boosters-werent-much-better-than-old-shots-were-too-small-to-come-to-any-conclusions.html

 

Recently, The Lancet published a study on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and the waning of immunity with time. The study showed that immune function among vaccinated individuals 8 months after the administration of two doses of COVID-19 vaccine was lower than that among the unvaccinated individuals. According to European Medicines Agency recommendations, frequent COVID-19 booster shots could adversely affect the immune response and may not be feasible.

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35659687/

10 hours ago, dotcalm said:

Recently, The Lancet published a study on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and the waning of immunity with time. The study showed that immune function among vaccinated individuals 8 months after the administration of two doses of COVID-19 vaccine was lower than that among the unvaccinated individuals. According to European Medicines Agency recommendations, frequent COVID-19 booster shots could adversely affect the immune response and may not be feasible.

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35659687/

The letter you are citing makes claims and references a Lancet study. The claims the letter author is making are that:

 

"immune function among vaccinated individuals 8 months after the administration of two doses of COVID-19 vaccine was lower than that among the unvaccinated individuals."

 

Did you go to the study in question? https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)00089-7/fulltext

 

At no point in its robust and detailed analysis does it come to those conclusions.

 

COVID-19 vaccines don’t weaken the immune system; Lancet study misrepresented in Virology Journal comment

 

Misleading: The review article by Seneff et al. provided no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines weaken the immune system.

 

On 21 July 2022, Fox News host Tucker Carlson claimed that “it’s looking likely that [COVID-19] vaccines suppress the immune system”. To support that assertion, Carlson cited a review article by Seneff et al. and a comment in Virology Journal by cardiologist Kenji Yamamoto. 

 

The claim isn’t new; Health Feedback already debunked this claim here, here, and here. Claims like this illustrate how scientific publishing has proven to be an effective vehicle for spreading misinformation, by lending a sheen of credibility to inaccurate and misleading claims and narratives.

 

No scientific evidence supports the claim that COVID-19 vaccination weakens the immune system. On the contrary, vaccination helps our immune system to better defend itself against infection. Large-scale clinical trials and scientific studies found that the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines outweigh their risks.

 

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/covid-19-vaccines-dont-weaken-immune-system-lancet-study-misrepresented-tucker-carlson-hodgetwins/

 

 

 

 

 

On 10/26/2022 at 1:21 PM, onthedarkside said:

Omicron-specific booster shots from Moderna and Pfizer weren’t significantly better than the original COVID-19 boosters from both drug companies in two small studies that compared how they fared against the most common variants circulating in the United States.

How could they be better, they are targeting the wrong omicron variant.

 

Pfizer and Moderna’s new bivalent boosters are already outdated, targeting wrong strains and many Americans have remained hesitant to inject themselves with a shot tested only on mice.

 

Pfizer and Moderna’s much hyped bivalent booster shots were rolled out to the market in September. Just two months later, their product is already targeting the wrong coronavirus strains.

As you can see in the chart below from the CDC’s genomic surveillance tracker, the new boosters, which were designed and authorized for BA.4 and BA.5 lineage variants, no longer target the correct strain. As of December 10, BA.5 strains only accounted for 11.5% of all cases and the BA.4 is 0% of cases.

 

If it follows the trajectory of other strains, the mutations targeted by the bivalent booster will be entirely nonexistent by the end of January 2023.

Given the rapid mutation rate, the mRNA injections don’t appear serve a positive outcome for anyone looking for long term protection. Additionally, the shots are known to present a significantly increased risk for serious side effects, especially among young adult males. Only a fool would inject these vaccines.

 

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#variant-proportions

On 12/15/2022 at 10:15 PM, dotcalm said:

Recently, The Lancet published a study on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and the waning of immunity with time. The study showed that immune function among vaccinated individuals 8 months after the administration of two doses of COVID-19 vaccine was lower than that among the unvaccinated individuals. According to European Medicines Agency recommendations, frequent COVID-19 booster shots could adversely affect the immune response and may not be feasible.

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35659687/

 

On 12/16/2022 at 11:05 AM, dotcalm said:

How could they be better, they are targeting the wrong omicron variant.

 

Pfizer and Moderna’s new bivalent boosters are already outdated, targeting wrong strains and many Americans have remained hesitant to inject themselves with a shot tested only on mice.

 

Pfizer and Moderna’s much hyped bivalent booster shots were rolled out to the market in September. Just two months later, their product is already targeting the wrong coronavirus strains.

As you can see in the chart below from the CDC’s genomic surveillance tracker, the new boosters, which were designed and authorized for BA.4 and BA.5 lineage variants, no longer target the correct strain. As of December 10, BA.5 strains only accounted for 11.5% of all cases and the BA.4 is 0% of cases.

 

If it follows the trajectory of other strains, the mutations targeted by the bivalent booster will be entirely nonexistent by the end of January 2023.

Given the rapid mutation rate, the mRNA injections don’t appear serve a positive outcome for anyone looking for long term protection. Additionally, the shots are known to present a significantly increased risk for serious side effects, especially among young adult males. Only a fool would inject these vaccines.

 

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#variant-proportions

The targeting doesn't have to be precise for the vaccine to be effective. We know that because as the virus evolved those vaccinated with earlier versions still had a far lower hospitalization and mortality rate than did the unvaccinated. Your claim is nonsense.

And now this:

Two new studies show mRNA-jabbed people have a much higher risk of getting Covid than unvaccinated people.

People who have received mRNA Covid vaccines are at least twice as likely to be infected with the coronavirus as unvaccinated people, according to two new papers from researchers in Indiana and Ohio.

Worse, the newer of the two studies, which covered Omicron this fall, found risk actually rises with the number of shots.

People who had received three or more shots were more than three times as likely to be infected as those who hadn’t received any.

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v1.full.pdf

21 hours ago, placeholder said:

Your claim is nonsense.

....but factual, see the evidence.

6 minutes ago, dotcalm said:

And now this:

Two new studies show mRNA-jabbed people have a much higher risk of getting Covid than unvaccinated people.

People who have received mRNA Covid vaccines are at least twice as likely to be infected with the coronavirus as unvaccinated people, according to two new papers from researchers in Indiana and Ohio.

Worse, the newer of the two studies, which covered Omicron this fall, found risk actually rises with the number of shots.

People who had received three or more shots were more than three times as likely to be infected as those who hadn’t received any.

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v1.full.pdf

No point even discussing a preprint, did you miss the disclaimer?

 

NOTE: This preprint reports new research that has not been certified by peer review and should not be used to guide clinical practice.

1 minute ago, dotcalm said:

....but factual, see the evidence.

What evidence? You linked to a letter from a cardiologist. Not to research. And your claim that because the vaccines are exactly targeted on the latest version of the virus they're ineffective is obviously wrong.

 

10 minutes ago, dotcalm said:

And now this:

Two new studies show mRNA-jabbed people have a much higher risk of getting Covid than unvaccinated people.

People who have received mRNA Covid vaccines are at least twice as likely to be infected with the coronavirus as unvaccinated people, according to two new papers from researchers in Indiana and Ohio.

Worse, the newer of the two studies, which covered Omicron this fall, found risk actually rises with the number of shots.

People who had received three or more shots were more than three times as likely to be infected as those who hadn’t received any.

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v1.full.pdf

Here is the conclusion of what you call the newer of the 2 studies you linked to:

"In conclusion, this study found an overall modest protective effect of the bivalent vaccine booster against COVID-19, among working-aged adults. The effect of multiple COVID-19 vaccine doses on future risk of COVID-19 needs further study."

 

By the way, both your links lead to the same study.