Authors: QUOTH THE RAVEN QTR Finance September 16, 2022
It was just a couple of days ago that I wrote about the explosive chronology of events laid out by Rutgers professor and Harvard PhD Dr. Richard Ebright that made it clear to me that the Covid “lab leak” origin was the most reasonable explanation for the pandemic.
And now, before we’ve even had a chance to digest that information, it looks as though we are getting another desperately needed Covid reality check: a new study conducted by scientists from University of Washington, Harvard and Johns Hopkins, emerged just hours ago and makes arguments against vaccine booster mandates for young adults. The findings of the study were stunning.
The study, which is still in pre-print and has not yet been peer reviewed, is called “COVID-19 Vaccine Boosters for Young Adults: A Risk-Benefit Assessment and Five Ethical Arguments against Mandates at Universities”.
The study looks at how, as of May 2022, at least 1,000 colleges and universities have required vaccination, with over 300 of them requiring boosters. Despite “more than fifty petitions” in writing against these mandates, “young people, parents and faculty have been ignored by administrators and mandate proponents”, the study says.
Led by researchers from the University of Washington, University of Oxford, Harvard and Johns Hopkins University, it set out to look at the problems of students facing disenrollment at North American universities due to third dose COVID-19 vaccine mandates.
The says that “two main factors” are driving scientific controversy over boosters: “a lack of evidence that booster doses provide meaningful reduction in hospitalisation risk among young people and mounting evidence that (widespread) prior infection confers significant protection against hospitalisation 50 due to (re-)infection.”
Remember earlier this year when the idea of “natural immunity” all of a sudden went from conspiracy theory topic to widely accepted by Dr. Fauci?
The paper seeks to provide the first “risk benefit assessment of SARS-CoV-2 boosters for young previously uninfected adults under 40 years old”.
The study found that requiring third boosters may provide “net expected harm”, as the study estimated that “22,000 – 30,000 previously uninfected adults aged 18-29 must be boosted with an mRNA vaccine to prevent one COVID-19 hospitalisation.”
New U.S. research on long COVID-19 provides fresh evidence that it can happen even after breakthrough infections in vaccinated people, and that older adults face higher risks for the long-term effects.
A separate report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that up to a year after an initial coronavirus infection, 1 in 4 adults aged 65 and older had at least one potential long COVID health problem, compared with 1 in 5 younger adults.
Long COVID refers to any of more than two dozens symptoms that linger, recur or first appear at least one month after a coronavirus infection. These can affect all parts of the body and may include fatigue, shortness of breath, brain fog and blood clots.
Coronavirus vaccines that help prevent initial infections and serious illnesses provide some protection against long COVID but mounting research shows not as much as scientists had first hoped.
The veterans study published in Nature Medicine reviewed medical records of mostly white male veterans, aged 60, on average. Of the 13 million veterans, almost 3 million had been vaccinated last year, through October.
About 1%, or nearly 34,000, developed breakthrough infections. Lead author Dr. Ziyad Al-Aly noted that the study was done before the highly contagious omicron variant appeared at the end of the year and said the rate of breakthrough infections has likely increased.
Breakthrough infections and long COVID symptoms were more common among those who had received Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose shot compared with two doses of either Moderna or Pfizer vaccines. Whether any had received booster shots is not known; the first booster wasn’t OK’d in the U.S. until late September.
Overall, 32% had long COVID symptoms up to six months after breakthrough infections. That’s compared with 36% of unvaccinated veterans who had been infected and developed long COVID.
Vaccination reduced the chances for any long COVID symptoms by a “modest” 15%,” although it cut the risk in half for lingering respiratory or clotting problems, said Al-Aly, a researcher with Washington University and the Veterans Affairs health system in St. Louis. These symptoms included persistent shortness of breath or cough and blood clots in lungs or veins in the legs.
Patients who have taken Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine have tested positive for virus more often than their Moderna and Pfizer counterparts.FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP via Getty Images
Infectious disease expert Dr. Kristin Englund, who runs a center for long COVID patients at the Cleveland Clinic, said the Nature Medicine study mirrors what she sees at her clinic. Long COVID patients there include people who were vaccinated and received boosters.
“As we have no clear treatments for long COVID, it is important for everyone to get vaccinated and use other proven methods of prevention such as masking and social distancing in order to prevent infections with COVID and thus long COVID,” Englund said.
The CDC report, released Tuesday, used medical records for almost 2 million U.S. adults from the start of the pandemic in March 2020 to last November. They included 353,000 who had COVID-19. Patients were tracked for up to a year to determine if they developed any of 26 health conditions that have been attributed to long COVID.
Those who had COVID were much more likely than other adults without COVID to develop at least one of these conditions, and risks were greatest for those aged 65 and older. Information on vaccination, sex and race was not included.
Breathing problems and muscle aches were among the most common conditions.
Older adults’ risks were higher for certain conditions, including strokes, brain fog, kidney failure and mental health problems. The findings are worrisome because those conditions can hasten older adults’ needs for long-term care, the report authors said.
They stressed that routine assessment of all COVID patients “is critical to reduce the incidence” of long COVID.
The post-acute sequelae of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection—also referred to as Long COVID—have been described, but whether breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection (BTI) in vaccinated people results in post-acute sequelae is not clear. In this study, we used the US Department of Veterans Affairs national healthcare databases to build a cohort of 33,940 individuals with BTI and several controls of people without evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, including contemporary (n = 4,983,491), historical (n = 5,785,273) and vaccinated (n = 2,566,369) controls. At 6 months after infection, we show that, beyond the first 30 days of illness, compared to contemporary controls, people with BTI exhibited a higher risk of death (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.75, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.59, 1.93) and incident post-acute sequelae (HR = 1.50, 95% CI: 1.46, 1.54), including cardiovascular, coagulation and hematologic, gastrointestinal, kidney, mental health, metabolic, musculoskeletal and neurologic disorders. The results were consistent in comparisons versus the historical and vaccinated controls. Compared to people with SARS-CoV-2 infection who were not previously vaccinated (n = 113,474), people with BTI exhibited lower risks of death (HR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.58, 0.74) and incident post-acute sequelae (HR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.82, 0.89). Altogether, the findings suggest that vaccination before infection confers only partial protection in the post-acute phase of the disease; hence, reliance on it as a sole mitigation strategy may not optimally reduce long-term health consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The findings emphasize the need for continued optimization of strategies for primary prevention of BTI and will guide development of post-acute care pathways for people with BTI.
The post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection—also referred to as Long COVID—have been characterized1. Increasingly, vaccinated individuals are being diagnosed with COVID-19 as a result of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection (BTI)2,3. Whether people with BTI experience post-acute sequelae is not clear. Addressing this knowledge gap is important to guide public health policy and post-acute COVID-19 care strategies.
Here we leverage the breadth and depth of the electronic healthcare databases of the US Department of Veterans Affairs to address the question of whether people with BTI develop post-acute sequelae. We characterize the risks and 6-month burdens of a panel of prespecified outcomes in a cohort of people who experienced BTI after completion of vaccination in the overall cohort and by care setting of the acute phase of the disease (that is, whether people were not hospitalized, hospitalized or admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) during the first 30 days after a positive test). We then undertake a comparative evaluation of the magnitude of risk in people with BTI versus those with SARS-CoV-2 infection and no prior vaccination and, separately, hospitalized people with BTI versus those hospitalized with seasonal influenza.
Post-acute sequelae in BTI versus controls without SARS-CoV-2 infection
There were 33,940 and 4,983,491 participants in the BTI group and a contemporary control group of users of the Veterans Health Administration from 1 January 2021 to 31 October 2021 with no record of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, respectively. BTI participants had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test with prior record of a complete vaccination defined following Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines at 14 days after first Janssen (Johnson & Johnson)(Ad26.COV2.S) vaccination and 14 days after second Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) or Moderna (mRNA-1273) vaccination. The demographic and health characteristics of the BTI and the control groups before and after weighting are presented in Supplementary Tables 1–4. During the enrollment period, the overall rate of BTI within those fully vaccinated was 10.60 (95% CI: 10.52, 10.70) per 1,000 persons at 6 months; rates of breakthrough by vaccine type are presented in Supplementary Data Table 1.
For all analyses, we provide two measures of risk: (1) we estimated the adjusted HRs of a set of incident prespecified outcomes in people with BTI versus the control group; and (2) we estimated the adjusted excess burden of each outcome due to BTI per 1,000 persons 6 months after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test on the basis of the difference between the estimated incidence rate in individuals with BTI and the control group. Assessment of standardized mean differences of participant characteristics (from data domains including diagnoses, medications and laboratory test results) after application of weighting showed that they are well-balanced in each analysis of incident outcomes (Supplementary Fig. 1).
Compared to the contemporary control group, people who survived the first 30 days of BTI exhibited an increased risk of death (HR = 1.75, 95% CI: 1.59, 1.93) and excess burden of death estimated at 13.36 (95% CI: 11.36, 15.55) per 1,000 persons with BTI at 6 months; all burden estimates represent excess burden and are given per 1,000 persons with BTI at 6 months (Fig. 1). People with BTI also had an increased risk of having at least one post-acute sequela of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) (HR = 1.50, 95% CI: 1.46, 1.54; burden of 122.22, 95% CI: 115.31, 129.24) (Supplementary Table 5).
Compared to the control group, 30-day survivors of BTI exhibited increased risk of post-acute sequelae in the pulmonary (HR = 2.48 (2.33, 2.64); burden of 39.82 (36.83, 42.99)) and several extrapulmonary organ systems, including cardiovascular disorders (HR = 1.74 (1.66, 1.83); burden of 43.94 (39.72, 48.35)), coagulation and hematologic disorders (HR = 2.43 (2.18, 2.71); burden of 13.66 (11.95, 15.56)), fatigue (HR = 2.00 (1.82, 2.21); burden of 15.47 (13.21, 17.96)), gastrointestinal disorders (HR = 1.63 (1.54, 1.72); burden of 37.68 (33.76, 41.80)), kidney disorders (HR = 1.62 (1.47, 1.77); burden of 16.12 (13.72, 18.74)), mental health disorders (HR = 1.46 (1.39, 1.53); burden of 45.85 (40.97, 50.92)), metabolic disorders (HR = 1.46 (1.37, 1.56); burden of 30.70 (26.65, 35.00)), musculoskeletal disorders (HR = 1.53 (1.42, 1.64); burden of 19.81 (16.56, 23.31)) and neurologic disorders (HR = 1.69 (1.52, 1.88); burden of 11.60 (9.43, 14.01)). Risk and excess burden of each individual sequela and by organ system are provided in Extended Data Fig. 1 (Supplementary Table 6) and Fig. 1 (Supplementary Table 5), respectively.
The results were consistent in analyses considering a historical control group (n = 5,785,273) as the referent category (Extended Data Fig. 2 and Supplementary Table 7) and, separately, people who were vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2 and did not experience a BTI (n = 2,566,369) as another alternative control group (Extended Data Fig. 3 and Supplementary Table 8).
The risk of death was increased in the 30–90 days and also increased, but to a lesser extent, in the 90–180 days after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (Supplementary Table 9). The risk of incident sequelae was increased in the 30–90 days after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. In the period between 90 days and 180 days after testing positive, there was increased risk of both incident sequalae—albeit in lesser magnitude than the risk in days 30–90—and increased risk of recurrent or persistent sequalae (Supplementary Table 9).
Compared to the contemporary control group, there was increased risk of death, at least one PASC and organ involvement in people who were not immunocompromised before BTI (Extended Data Fig. 4a and Supplementary Table 10); the risks were generally higher in those who were immunocompromised before BTI (Extended Data Fig. 4a and Supplementary Table 10). Analyses of people with BTI showed that the risks of death, at least one PASC and organ system involvement were consistently higher in people who were immunocompromised versus those who were not before BTI (Extended Data Fig. 4b and Supplementary Table 10).
Of people with BTI, analyses by vaccine type suggested that there is no statistically significant difference in risk of post-acute death among the three SARS-CoV-2 vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2), Moderna (mRNA-1273) and Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) (Ad26.COV2.S)). Both BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 were associated with decreased risk of at least one PASC: pulmonary and extrapulmonary organ involvement. There was no statistically significant difference in risk of any of these outcomes between BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 (Supplementary Table 11).
Post-acute sequelae in BTI by care setting of the acute phase of the disease
The demographic and health characteristics of people with BTI who were not hospitalized, who were hospitalized and who were admitted to ICU during the acute phase of the disease before and after weighting are provided in Supplementary Tables 12 and 13. Evaluation of standardized mean differences of baseline participant characteristics after the application of the weighting suggested good balance (Supplementary Fig. 2).
Compared to the control group of people without evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, people who were not hospitalized during the first 30 days of BTI exhibited an increased risk of death (HR = 1.29 (1.12, 1.49); burden of 7.77 (5.62, 10.24)); the risk was further increased in those who were hospitalized (HR = 2.69 (2.33, 3.12); burden of 24.79 (20.39, 29.86)) and was highest in those who were admitted to ICU (HR = 5.68 (4.55, 7.09); burden of 60.02 (46.85, 76.19)). The risk of having at least one post-acute sequela was evident in non-hospitalized people (HR = 1.25 (1.20, 1.30); burden of 77.60 (68.40, 87.04)), was further increased in those who were hospitalized (HR = 2.95 (2.80, 3.10); burden of 334.10 (315.90, 352.53)) and was highest in those admitted to ICU (HR = 3.75 (3.38, 4.16); burden of 421.39 (383.37, 459.56)) (Fig. 2 and Supplementary Table 14).
People who were not hospitalized exhibited small but significant increased risk of post-acute sequelae, including cardiovascular, coagulation and hematologic, gastrointestinal, mental health, metabolic, musculoskeletal and pulmonary disoders, as well as increased risk of fatigue (Fig. 2 and Supplementary Table 14). The risks were further increased in people who were hospitalized (Fig. 2 and Supplementary Table 14) and highest in those admitted to the ICU (Fig. 2 and Supplementary Table 14). Analyses of individual sequela are presented in Extended Data Fig. 5 and Supplementary Table 15.
Post-acute sequelae in BTI versus SARS-CoV-2 infection without prior vaccination
To place the magnitude of risk of post-acute sequelae in people with BTI in broad context of post-acute COVID-19 manifestations, we developed a comparative approach to evaluate the risk of organ system involvement in people with BTI (n = 33,940) versus people with SARS-CoV-2 infection and no prior history of vaccination (n = 113,474) (Supplementary Tables 1 and 16). Assessment of standardized mean differences of baseline characteristics in the weighted cohorts suggested good balance (Supplementary Figs. 3 and 4 and Supplementary Tables 4 and 17).
People with BTI exhibited lower risk of death (HR = 0.66 (0.58, 0.74); burden of −10.99 (−13.45, −8.22); negative values denote reduced burden in BTI relative to SARS-CoV-2 infection) and lower risk of post-acute sequelae (HR = 0.85 (0.82, 0.89); burden of −43.38 (−53.22, −33.31)) compared to those with SARS-CoV-2 infection and no prior history of vaccination (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Table 18). Comparatively, the risk of post-acute sequelae in all the examined organ systems was lower in people with BTI versus those with SARS-CoV-2 infection without prior vaccination. BTI was associated with lower risk of 24 of the 47 sequelae examined compared to those with SARS-CoV-2 infection without prior vaccination (Extended Data Fig. 6 and Supplementary Table 19). The reduced risk was evident (albeit weak) in those who were immunocompromised and in those who were not immunocompromised (Supplementary Table 20).
Analyses within each care setting suggested that the risk reduction in BTI versus SARS-CoV-2 infection on both the relative (HR) and absolute (burden) scale generally becomes increasingly more pronounced as the acuity of the care setting increased (from non-hospitalized to admitted to ICU) (Fig. 4 and Supplementary Table 21). BTI was associated with less risk of death and at least one PASC in all care settings. There was also a consistently reduced risk of hematologic and coagulation disorders and pulmonary disorders in BTI versus SARS-CoV-2 infection without prior vaccination across all care settings.
Post-acute sequelae in people hospitalized with BTI versus seasonal influenza
We developed a comparative analysis to better understand how people hospitalized with BTI (n = 3,667) fare relative to those who are hospitalized with seasonal influenza (n = 14,337). Demographic and health characteristics before and after weighting are provided in Supplementary Tables 22 and 23. Examination of standardized mean differences of baseline characteristics after application of overlap weighting demonstrated good balance (Supplementary Fig. 5).
Compared to people who were hospitalized with seasonal influenza, people with BTI who were hospitalized during the acute phase of the disease and survived the first 30 days exhibited an increased risk of death (HR = 2.43 (2.02, 2.93); burden of 43.58 (31.21, 58.26)) and increased risk of having at least one post-acute sequela (HR = 1.27 (1.19, 1.36); burden of 87.59 (63.83, 111.40)) (Extended Data Fig. 7 and Supplementary Table 24). People with BTI exhibited increased risk of sequelae in all the examined organ systems compared to those with seasonal influenza. Results of individual sequalae are presented in Supplementary Fig. 6 and Supplementary Table 25.
Positive and negative outcome controls
To assess whether our approach reproduces established knowledge, we tested the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection without prior vaccination and the risk of fatigue (a cardinal post-acute sequela of COVID-19, where, based on prior evidence, we would expect a positive association). The results showed that, compared to the contemporary control group, people with SARS-CoV-2 infection and without prior vaccination exhibited increased risk of fatigue (HR = 2.79 (2.57, 303)) (Extended Data Table 1a).
To assess the putative presence of spurious associations, we tested the association between BTI and several negative outcome controls where there was no biologic plausibility or epidemiologic evidence that an association is expected. We used the same data sources, cohort building process, covariate selection approach (including predefined and algorithmically selected high-dimensional covariates), weighting method and interpretation of results. The results suggested no significant association between BTI and risk of any of the negative outcome controls (Extended Data Table 1a).
To further test the rigor of our approach, we tested as a pair of negative exposure controls receipt of influenza vaccination in odd-numbered (n = 605,453) versus even-numbered (n = 571,291) calendar days between 1 March 2020 and 15 January 2021. Examination of the associations of receipt of influenza vaccine on odd-numbered versus even-numbered calendar days and each outcome yielded non-significant results, consistent with our a priori expectations for a successful application of negative exposure controls (Extended Data Table 1b).
In this study of 33,940 people with BTI, 4,983,491 in the contemporary control, 5,785,273 in the historical control, 2,566,369 in the vaccinated control, 113,474 in the SARS-CoV-2 infection without prior vaccination group and 14,337 in the seasonal influenza group, we show that, compared to non-infected controls, people who survive the first 30 days of BTI exhibited increased risk of death and post-acute sequelae in the pulmonary and several extrapulmonary organ systems. The risks of death and post-acute sequelae were evident among non-hospitalized people, further increased among hospitalized people and highest among people who were admitted to ICU during the acute phase of the disease. Our comparative approach shows that risks of death and post-acute sequelae were lower in people with BTI versus people with SARS-CoV-2 infection without prior vaccination. Analyses of BTI versus SARS-CoV-2 infection without prior vaccination within the same care setting showed that this risk reduction was progressively more evident as care acuity of the acute phase of the disease increased from non-hospitalized to hospitalized and admitted to ICU and was consistently most pronounced for coagulation and pulmonary disorders. In comparative analyses among people who were hospitalized during the acute phase of the disease, those with BTI exhibited higher risks of death and post-acute sequelae than those with seasonal influenza. The constellation of findings shows that the burden of death and disease experienced by people with BTI is not trivial. Our comparative analyses provide a framework to better evaluate and contextually understand risks of the post-viral condition in people with BTI versus non-infected controls, versus SARS-CoV-2 infection without prior vaccination and versus seasonal influenza. The findings show that vaccination only partially reduces the risk of death and post-acute sequelae, suggesting that reliance on it as a sole mitigation strategy may not most optimally reduce the risk of the long-term health consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our results emphasize the need for continued optimization of primary prevention strategies of BTIs and will inform post-acute care approaches for people with BTI.
We examined the risk of death and post-acute sequelae in those with BTI versus several controls of people without evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, including (1) a contemporary control of people exposed to the same broader forces of the pandemic (lockdowns and economic, social and environmental stressors); (2) a historical control from a pre-pandemic era that represents a baseline unaffected by the disruptions of the pandemic; and (3) a vaccinated control group. The results show two key findings: (1) Long COVID, including increased risks of death and myriad post-acute sequelae in the pulmonary and extrapulmonary organ systems, also manifests in vaccinated individuals who experience a BTI; and (2) the range of post-acute sequelae in various organ systems in BTI does not appear to be different than COVID-19 without prior vaccination1,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12. Our analyses of BTI versus SARS-CoV-2 infection without prior vaccination show that, comparatively, the magnitude of the risks of death and post-acute sequelae was lower in people with BTI versus those with SARS-CoV-2 infection who had not been previously vaccinated for it. These results show that, although vaccination may partially reduce the risks of post-acute death and disease, to most optimally reduce this burden requires continued emphasis on primary prevention of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection as a goal of public health policy.
Although the absolute rates are smaller than in those with SARS-CoV-2 infection without prior vaccination, given the scale of the pandemic and the potential for breakthrough cases to continue to accumulate, the overall burden of death and disease after BTI will likely be substantial, will further add to the toll of this pandemic and will represent an additional strain on already overwhelmed health systems. In planning and development of health resources, governments and health systems should take into account the care needs of people with post-acute sequelae after BTI13.
Our analyses suggest that this risk reduction (of post-acute sequelae) was most pronounced in recipients of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines (compared to Ad26.COV2.S). Although these results recapitulate evidence of vaccine effectiveness in the acute phase of COVID-19, the mechanism or mechanisms underlying this carry-through effect of risk reduction from the acute to the post-acute phase of the disease is not entirely clear. One putative interpretation of these results is that vaccine-induced reduction in severity of the acute infection may then translate into less long-term risk of post-acute health outcomes. In other analyses, we also show that the reduced risk of post-acute sequelae in people with BTIs was partially eroded in people with immunocompromised status, suggesting a putative immune-related mechanism in the expression of post-acute sequelae that may be influenced by vaccination.
We also show that the risk of post-acute sequelae is higher in people with BTI than in people with seasonal influenza—a well-characterized respiratory viral illness. This extends previous evidence showing that the risk of post-acute sequelae in people with SARS-CoV-2 infection was higher than those with seasonal influenza and again emphasizes the importance of prevention of both SARS-CoV-2 infection and BTI1.
This study has several strengths. To our knowledge, it is the first large study to characterize the risks of post-acute sequelae of BTI at 6 months. We leveraged the vast national healthcare databases of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (the largest nationally integrated healthcare delivery system in the United States) to characterize the risk and 6-month burden of a comprehensive set of prespecified incident health outcomes in patients who survived the first 30 days of BTI versus several control groups (contemporary, historical and vaccinated controls). In addition to evaluating risk of BTI versus those with no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the overall cohort and by care setting of the acute phase of the disease (non-hospitalized, hospitalized and admitted to ICU), we also undertook a comparative evaluation of BTI versus SARS-CoV-2 infection in people who had not been previously vaccinated and, separately, BTI versus seasonal influenza. We used advanced statistical methodologies and adjusted through weighting for a battery of predefined covariates selected based on prior knowledge and algorithmically selected covariates from high-dimensional data domains, including diagnoses, prescription records and laboratory test results. We evaluated the rigor of our approach by testing positive and negative outcome controls to determine whether our approach would produce results consistent with pre-test expectations.
The study also has several limitations. The BTI and SARS-CoV-2 infection groups included only those who had a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 and did not include those who may have had an infection with SARS-CoV-2 but were not tested; however, if present, this will bias the estimates toward the null. Although the Veterans Affairs population is comprised of mostly men, it includes 8–10% women, which, across the groups in our study, included 1,300,744 female participants. Although we adjusted through the overlap weighting approach for a large battery of predefined and algorithmically selected covariates, and although our approach demonstrated good balance for more than 734 covariates (including all those that were available in the data but not included in the weighting process) from several data domains, including diagnoses, prescription medications and laboratory test results, and resulted in successful testing of positive outcome controls and negative outcome controls, we cannot completely rule out residual confounding. Our approach does not evaluate the severity of each outcome. Finally, the COVID-19 global pandemic is highly dynamic. As vaccine uptake continues to increase, as vaccine schedules continue to be optimized, as vaccine effectiveness wanes over time since vaccination, as booster vaccinations are deployed, as treatment strategies of the acute phase of COVID-19 continue to improve and as new variants of the virus emerge, it is likely that the epidemiology of BTI and its downstream sequelae may also change over time.
In sum, our findings provide evidence of increased risk of death and post-acute sequelae in people with BTI compared to controls with no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection; the risks were reduced in comparative analyses involving BTI versus SARS-CoV-2 infection without prior vaccination. Our results show that SARS-CoV-2 vaccination before infection only partially reduced the risk of death and post-acute sequelae. Measures for the prevention of breakthrough infections are needed to most optimally reduce the risk of the long-term health consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
All participants who were eligible for this study were enrolled; no a priori sample size analyses were conducted to guide enrollment. All analyses were observational, and investigators were aware of participant exposure and outcome status. A summary of the major design elements is presented in Supplementary Table 26, and an analytic flowchart is provided in Supplementary Fig. 7.
Cohort participants were identified from the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) electronic health databases. The VHA provides healthcare to discharged veterans of the US armed forces in a nationally integrated network of healthcare systems that includes more than 1,415 healthcare facilities. Veterans enrolled in the VHA have access to a comprehensive medical benefits package that includes outpatient services; preventive, primary and specialty care; mental health care; geriatric care; inpatient hospital care; extended long-term care; prescriptions; home healthcare; medical equipment; and prosthetics. The VHA healthcare databases are updated daily.
We first identified users of the VHA who were alive on 1 January 2021 (n = 5,430,912). Use of the VHA was defined as having record of use of outpatient or inpatient service, receipt of medication or use of laboratory service with the VHA healthcare system in the 2 years prior (Supplementary Fig. 8). Among these, 163,024 participants had a record of a first positive SARS-CoV-2 test from 1 January 2021 to 31 October 2021, and 5,140,387 had no record of any positive SARS-CoV-2 test between 1 January 2020 and 1 December 2021. Participants were followed until 1 December 2021.
To construct a group of people with BTI, we selected, from those with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (n = 163,024), those with a record of completion of an Ad26.COV2.S, mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2 vaccination before the date of their first positive SARS-CoV-2 test (n = 34,863). Completion of vaccination was defined following CDC guidelines at the 14th day after the second shot of the mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2 vaccination series or the 14th day after the first shot of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccination. Setting the date of first positive SARS-CoV-2 test as time zero (T0), we then selected those alive 30 days after T0, resulting in a cohort of 33,940 participants in the BTI group.
We then constructed several control groups; the rationale for each of these control groups is provided in Supplementary Fig. 9. To build a contemporary control group of people with no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, we then used the 5,140,387 users of the VHA who had no record of a SARS-CoV-2-positive test. Among these participants, we randomly assigned a T0 to each participant in the group on the basis of the distribution of the T0 dates in those with BTI. We finally selected those who were alive 30 days after their T0 (n = 4,983,491). The contemporary control group represents contemporaneous users of the VHA who were subject to the broader forces of the pandemic but did not contract SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of these, the 2,566,369 who had record of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccination before their T0 served as a vaccinated control group. The vaccinated control group represents contemporaneous users of the VHA who share the characteristic of being vaccinated with the breakthrough group and have a major distinction in that they did not contract SARS-CoV-2 infection subsequent to their vaccination.
To build an alternate control group during a period of time where participants were not subject to the influence of the pandemic, we identified users of the VHA who were alive on 1 January 2018 (n = 6,084,973) and who had no history of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (n = 5,938,519). After randomly assigning a T0 in 2018 on the basis of the distribution of the calendar dates of T0 in those with BTI, 5,785,273 were alive 30 days after T0. Participants were followed until 1 December 2018. This group served as the historical control group.
To build the group of people with SARS-CoV-2 infection and without prior vaccination as a means of investigating the effect of prior vaccination on the risk of post-acute sequalae, we identified, from the 163,024 people with a first positive SARS-CoV-2 test from 1 January 2021 to 31 October 2021, 118,185 who had no record of any SARS-CoV-2 vaccination up through 30 days after first positive SARS-CoV-2 test (T0). We then selected the 113,474 who were alive 30 days after T0 to comprise the group of people with SARS-CoV-2 infection and no prior vaccination.
Finally, to compare post-acute sequelae of those hospitalized with BTI during the acute phase of the illness to those hospitalized with seasonal influenza, we separately identified 15,160 VHA users hospitalized with positive seasonal influenza test 5 days before or 30 days after the test between 1 October 2016 and 29 February 2020. We set the date of the positive seasonal influenza test as T0. To ensure no overlap with the BTI group, participants who had no record of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test were then selected (n = 14,431). From these, we selected 14,337 who were alive 30 days after their T0 to constitute the seasonal influenza group. Duration of follow-up was randomly assigned on the basis of follow-up in the BTI group.
Data used in this study were obtained from the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW). Within CDW, the patient data domain provided information on demographic characteristics; the outpatient encounters domain and inpatient encounters domain provided information on health characteristics, including data on timing and location of interactions with the healthcare system, diagnoses and procedures; the pharmacy and barcode medication administration domains provided medication records; and the laboratory results domain provided laboratory test information in both outpatient and inpatient settings5,6. The COVID-19 Shared Data Resource provided information on SARS-CoV-2 test results and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status. The 2019 Area Deprivation Index (ADI) at each cohort participant residential address was used as a contextual measure of socioeconomic disadvantage14.
We prespecified a set of outcomes based on prior evidence on the post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection—also referred to as Long COVID4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12. Outcomes were defined using validated definitions leveraging information from several data domains, including diagnoses, prescription medications and laboratory test results, at the time of first record of occurrence in the data5,6,15,16,17,18,19,20,21. Incident post-acute sequelae were examined in a cohort with no record of the health condition in the 2 years before T0. We additionally examined outcomes of death and having at least one of post-acute sequelae that was defined at the time of the first incident prespecified post-acute sequelae in each participant.
Additionally, we defined a set of outcomes where we aggregated the prespecified post-acute sequelae, where applicable, by organ system. These included cardiovascular disorders, coagulation and hematologic disorders, fatigue, gastrointestinal disorders, kidney disorders, mental health disorders, metabolic disorders, musculoskeletal disorders, neurologic disorders and pulmonary disorders. All outcomes were assessed starting from 30 days after T0.
We included a set of predefined covariates based on prior knowledge4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,19,22,23,24,25,26 and algorithmically selected covariates. Predefined covariates included demographic information (age, race and sex); contextual information (ADI); measures of the intensity of healthcare interaction in the 2 years before T0, including the number of outpatient visits, the number of inpatient visits, the number of unique medications the participant received a prescription for and the number of routine blood panels that were performed; and prior history of receiving an influenza vaccination. We also included smoking status as a covariate. Health characteristics included prior history of anxiety, cancer, cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, peripheral artery disease, dementia, depression, type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and measures of estimated glomerular filtration rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and body mass index (BMI). We also included, as measures of spatiotemporal differences, the calendar week of enrollment and geographic region of receipt of care defined by Veterans Integrated Services Networks (VISN).
In consideration of the dynamicity of the pandemic, for analyses that compared BTI, SARS-CoV-2 infection without prior vaccination and the contemporary control, additional covariates included SARS-CoV-2 testing capacity, SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates, hospital system capacity (the total number of inpatient hospital beds) and inpatient bed occupancy rates (the percentage of hospital beds that were occupied) as well as a measure of the proportions of SARS-CoV-2 variants by Health and Human Services region26. These measures were ascertained for each participant in the week before cohort enrollment at the location of the healthcare system at which they received care. In analyses of the vaccinated control, we additionally included calendar week of first vaccination shot. All continuous covariates were treated as natural cubic splines unless heavily skewed toward zero.
In addition to the predefined covariates, we leveraged the high dimensionality of VA data where we developed and deployed a high-dimensional variable selection algorithm to identify covariates that may potentially confound the examined associations27. Using classifications from the Clinical Classifications Software Refined version 2021.1, available from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, more than 70,000 ICD-10 diagnoses codes in the year before T0 for each participant were classified into 540 diagnostic categories28,29,30. Using the VA drug classification system, 3,425 different medications were classified into 543 medication classes31,32. Finally, laboratory results from 38 different laboratory measurements were classified into 62 laboratory test abnormalities, defined by being above or below the corresponding reference ranges, on the basis of the recorded Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes. Of the high-dimensional variables that occurred at least 100 times in participants in each group (up to 821), we selected the top 100 variables with the highest relative risk for differences in group membership for inclusion in models.
Mean (standard deviation) and frequency (percentage) of select characteristics are reported in the BTI group, SARS-CoV-2-infected group without prior vaccination, the contemporary control group, the historical control group, the vaccinated control group and the seasonal influenza group, where appropriate. Characteristics of those with BTI by hospitalization status are additionally presented. Vaccination characteristics for those with BTI are reported as well as BTI rates per 1,000 persons at 6 months for those vaccinated from 1 January to 31 October 2021.
To balance baseline characteristics, including predefined and high-dimensional variables across comparison groups, we applied an overlap weighting approach in our analyses. In brief, logistic regressions were constructed for probability of group membership of the groups being compared, using the predefined and high-dimensional covariates as independent variables, in separate subcohorts with no prior history of the outcome being examined, estimating propensity scores of the probability of group assignment33,34. In consideration of variability in duration of potential follow-up, calendar week of enrollment was included to balance length of follow-up between cohorts (uncensored duration of follow-up was included for comparison versus seasonal influenza). Propensity scores were then used in construction of the overlap weights whose application achieved similar baseline characteristic distributions across groups while providing higher weights to those with baseline characteristics more similar to those in other groups. Weights were then applied to Cox survival models to estimate HRs, where follow-up started 30 days after the date of testing positive. Standard errors were estimated by applying the robust sandwich variance estimator method. Covariate balance among all predefined and high-dimensional variables were assessed for each model through the standardized mean difference, where a difference <0.1 was taken as evidence of balance. We estimated the incidence rate difference (referred to as excess burden) between groups per 1,000 participants at 6 months after the start of follow-up based on the difference in survival probability in the relevant groups.
We first examined the risk and excess burden of individual post-acute sequelae, post-acute sequelae by organ system, at least one post-acute sequela and death between the BTI group, those with SARS-CoV-2 infection without prior vaccination and the contemporary control. We then compared risks of the BTI group with the historical control and, separately, with the vaccinated control.
Further analyses were conducted to better understand the risk in BTI versus the contemporary control. To investigate risk of post-acute sequalae before and after 90 days of follow-up, we conducted analyses that examined risk during the first 30–90 days, and during the 90–180 days, after T0. Examination of the risk from the 90–180 days was done overall, for incident outcomes during this period (where there was no record of the outcome during the 30–90-day period) and for recurrent or persistent outcomes during this period (where there was a prior record of the outcome during the 30–90-day period). We then comparatively evaluated the risks between the BTI and contemporary control based on their immunocompromised status, where immunocompromised status was defined (according to the CDC definition) by a history of organ transplantation, advanced kidney disease (an estimated glomerular filtration rate of less than 15 ml/min/1.73 m2 or end-stage renal disease), cancer, HIV or conditions with prescriptions of more than 30-day use of corticosteroids or immunosuppressants, including systemic lupus erythematosus and rheumatoid arthritis. We lastly compared the risks and burden of death, at least one PASC, pulmonary disorders and extrapulmonary disorders within those with BTI by type of vaccination received.
We then examined the risk and excess burden associated with BTI by care setting of the acute phase of the disease. Risks were estimated for individual sequelae and risks and excess burden of organ system involvement, at least one post-acute sequela and death in those with a BTI who were not hospitalized, who were hospitalized and who were admitted to ICU during the 5 days before and 30 days after their positive SARS-CoV-2 test compared to the contemporary control group.
We additionally examined differences in risk and burden between BTI and SARS-CoV-2 infection without prior vaccination by severity of the acute phase of the disease (non-hospitalized, hospitalized and admitted to ICU).
Finally, we compared the risks and excess burden of individual post-acute sequelae, post-acute sequelae by organ system, at least one post-acute sequela and death between those hospitalized with BTI and those hospitalized with seasonal influenza.
Positive and negative controls
We examined, as positive outcome controls, the risks of fatigue in those with SARS-CoV-2 infection without prior vaccination compared to the contemporary and historical control groups as a means of testing whether our approach would reproduce established knowledge8,9,10,11,12.
The application of negative outcome control may help detect both suspected and unsuspected sources of spurious biases. We, therefore, tested comparing BTI to the contemporary and historical controls, the risk of atopic dermatitis, accidental poisoning, accidental injury, fitting of a hearing aid or contact lenses, ingrown toenail and scarring as negative outcome controls—where no prior knowledge suggests that an association is expected. Additionally, we tested a pair of negative-exposure controls; we expected that receipt of the influenza vaccine on odd-numbered (n = 605,453) versus even-numbered (n = 571,291) calendar days between 1 March 2020 and 15 January 2021 would be associated with similar risks of the outcomes examined in our analyses. The successful testing of positive outcome controls, negative outcome controls and negative exposure controls may lessen concerns about biases related to study design, covariate selection, analytic approach, outcome ascertainment, unmeasured confounding and other potential sources of latent biases35,36.
All analyses were two-sided. In all analyses, a 95% CI that excluded unity was considered evidence of statistical significance. All analyses were conducted in SAS Enterprise Guide 8.2, and all figures were generated in R version 4.0.4. This study was approved by the VA St. Louis Health Care System Institutional Review Board (protocol no. 1606333).
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the US Department of Veterans Affairs. VA data are made freely available to researchers behind the VA firewall with an approved VA study protocol. For more information, visit https://www.virec.research.va.gov or contact the VA Information Resource Center at VIReC@va.gov.
Al-Aly, Z., Xie, Y. & Bowe, B. High-dimensional characterization of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19. Nature594, 259–264 (2021).CASArticleGoogle Scholar
Juthani, P. V. et al. Hospitalisation among vaccine breakthrough COVID-19 infections. Lancet Infect. Dis.21, 1485–1486 (2021).CASArticleGoogle Scholar
Nixon, D. F. & Ndhlovu, L. C. Vaccine breakthrough infections with SARS-CoV-2 variants. N. Engl. J. Med.385, e7 (2021).ArticleGoogle Scholar
Xie, Y., Xu, E., Bowe, B. & Al-Aly, Z. Long-term cardiovascular outcomes of COVID-19. Nat. Med.28, 583–590 (2022).CASArticleGoogle Scholar
Bowe, B., Xie, Y., Xu, E. & Al-Aly, Z. Kidney outcomes in Long COVID. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol.32, 2851–2862 (2021)
Xie, Y., Bowe, B. & Al-Aly, Z. Burdens of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 by severity of acute infection, demographics and health status. Nat. Commun.12, 6571 (2021).CASArticleGoogle Scholar
Xie, Y., Xu, E. & Al-Aly, Z. Risks of mental health outcomes in people with Covid-19: cohort study. BMJ376, e068993 (2022).
Daugherty, S. E. et al. Risk of clinical sequelae after the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection: retrospective cohort study. BMJ373, n1098 (2021).ArticleGoogle Scholar
Taquet, M. et al. Incidence, co-occurrence, and evolution of long-COVID features: a 6-month retrospective cohort study of 273,618 survivors of COVID-19. PLoS Med.18, e1003773 (2021).CASArticleGoogle Scholar
Davis, H. E. et al. Characterizing long COVID in an international cohort: 7 months of symptoms and their impact. EClinicalMedicine38, 101019 (2021).ArticleGoogle Scholar
Taquet, M., Geddes, J. R., Husain, M., Luciano, S. & Harrison, P. J. 6-month neurological and psychiatric outcomes in 236 379 survivors of COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study using electronic health records. Lancet Psychiatry8, 416–427 (2021).ArticleGoogle Scholar
Ayoubkhani, D. et al. Post-covid syndrome in individuals admitted to hospital with covid-19: retrospective cohort study. BMJ372, n693 (2021).ArticleGoogle Scholar
Kind, A. J. H. & Buckingham, W. R. Making neighborhood-disadvantage metrics accessible—the neighborhood atlas. N. Engl. J. Med.378, 2456–2458 (2018).ArticleGoogle Scholar
Xie, Y. et al. Estimates of all cause mortality and cause specific mortality associated with proton pump inhibitors among US veterans: cohort study. BMJ365, l1580 (2019).ArticleGoogle Scholar
Xie, Y., Bowe, B., Maddukuri, G. & Al-Aly, Z. Comparative evaluation of clinical manifestations and risk of death in patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 and seasonal influenza: cohort study. BMJ371, m4677 (2021).
Xie, Y. et al. Comparative effectiveness of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors vs sulfonylureas in patients with type 2 diabetes. JAMA Intern. Med.181, 1043–1053 (2021).
Cai, M. et al. Temporal trends in incidence rates of lower extremity amputation and associated risk factors among patients using Veterans Health Administration services from 2008 to 2018. JAMA Netw. Open4, e2033953 (2021).ArticleGoogle Scholar
Cai, M., Bowe, B., Xie, Y. & Al-Aly, Z. Temporal trends of COVID-19 mortality and hospitalisation rates: an observational cohort study from the US Department of Veterans Affairs. BMJ Open11, e047369 (2021).ArticleGoogle Scholar
Bowe, B., Xie, Y., Yan, Y. & Al-Aly, Z. Burden of cause-specific mortality associated with PM2.5 air pollution in the United States. JAMA Netw. Open2, e1915834 (2019).ArticleGoogle Scholar
Bowe, B. et al. Acute kidney injury in a national cohort of hospitalized US veterans with COVID-19. Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol.16, 14–25 (2020).
Xie, Y. & Ziyad, A.-A. Risks and burdens of incident diabetes in long COVID-19: a cohort study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol.10, 311–321 (2022).
Schneeweiss, S. et al. High-dimensional propensity score adjustment in studies of treatment effects using health care claims data. Epidemiology20, 512–522 (2009).ArticleGoogle Scholar
Wei, Y. et al. Short term exposure to fine particulate matter and hospital admission risks and costs in the Medicare population: time stratified, case crossover study. BMJ367, l6258 (2019).ArticleGoogle Scholar
Aubert, C. E. et al. Best definitions of multimorbidity to identify patients with high health care resource utilization. Mayo Clin. Proc. Innov. Qual. Outcomes4, 40–49 (2020).ArticleGoogle Scholar
Olvey, E. L., Clauschee, S. & Malone, D. C. Comparison of critical drug–drug interaction listings: the Department of Veterans Affairs medical system and standard reference compendia. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther.87, 48–51 (2010).CASArticleGoogle Scholar
Greene, M., Steinman, M. A., McNicholl, I. R. & Valcour, V. Polypharmacy, drug–drug interactions, and potentially inappropriate medications in older adults with human immunodeficiency virus infection. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc.62, 447–453 (2014).ArticleGoogle Scholar
Li, F., Thomas, L. E. & Li, F. Addressing extreme propensity scores via the overlap weights. Am. J. Epidemiol.188, 250–257 (2019).ArticleGoogle Scholar
Thomas, L. E., Li, F. & Pencina, M. J. Overlap weighting: a propensity score method that mimics attributes of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA323, 2417–2418 (2020).ArticleGoogle Scholar
Lipsitch, M., Tchetgen Tchetgen, E. & Cohen, T. Negative controls: a tool for detecting confounding and bias in observational studies. Epidemiology21, 383–388 (2010).ArticleGoogle Scholar
Shi, X., Miao, W. & Tchetgen, E. T. A selective review of negative control methods in epidemiology. Curr. Epidemiol. Rep.7, 190–202 (2020).
The first diagnostic designed to identify patients with Long Covid has received CE-IVD marking in Europe, meaning it is ready for its formal launch in countries accepting the designation this month. It works by looking for “patterns of inflammatory marker expression” in the blood, and in particular for the Covid spike protein persisting in white blood cells. Business Wirehas the story.
The simple blood test can help to objectively diagnose patients suffering from Post-Acute Sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC), commonly known as Long Covid. Developed by IncellDx, the test will be available to prescribers and patients in September through one of the world’s largest providers of diagnostic services.
A CE Mark indicates that the incellKINE Long Covid In Vitro Diagnostic fulfills the requirements of relevant European product directives and meets all the requirements of the relevant recognised European harmonised performance and safety standards…
The CE marking is supported by data from a validation study conducted by one of the world’s largest providers of diagnostic services, showing the test provides greater than 90% accuracy across Covid strains. The test was developed based on clinical studies published in the peer reviewed journal Frontiers in Immunology, which showed that IncellDx researchers generated credible, objective disease scores for Long Covid using machine learning and artificial intelligence to measure and analyse sets of inflammatory markers called cytokines and chemokines. The studies also demonstrated that patients with previous COVID-19 infection and lingering symptoms were found to have a distinct immunologic profile characterised by patterns of inflammatory marker expression. In a subsequent publication, IncellDx found SARS CoV-2 S1 spike protein in monocytic reservoirs of Long Covid patients up to 15 months after acute infection. These papers can be found here and here.
Patterson added, “Long Covid presents a significant diagnostic and treatment challenge for patients. Many of the symptoms that are associated with long Covid, including fatigue, brain fog, shortness of breath, insomnia, and a wide range of cardiovascular issues, can easily be mistaken for other conditions like post-Lyme, ME-CFS, Fibromyalgia, or even the common cold. Having an effective – and importantly an objective – tool to diagnose the condition is absolutely essential. An objective test that can detect immune signatures specific to Long Covid is vital for effective diagnosis and to enable patients to seek effective treatment.”
Patients who have or think they may have Long Covid can learn more and register for a test here.
One question is how it will distinguish Long Covid from ‘Long Vaccine’. The same research team behind this test also investigated whether vaccination produced a similar syndrome characterised by lingering spike protein, immune inflammation and the typical symptoms. They found it did: spike protein persistence from vaccination appeared, they said, to be a “major contributor” of symptoms similar to Long Covid post-vaccination. Further, given that the spike protein “alone delivered by vaccination can cause similar pathologic features”, they concluded it may be a “major contributor” of Long Covid symptoms post-infection as well. In other words, Long Covid after infection may be being caused or prolonged by spike protein from the vaccine rather than the infection. It’s not clear if the new diagnostic test will distinguish between these causes (or if that’s possible).
Students at North American universities risk disenrollment due to third dose COVID-19 vaccine mandates. We present a risk-benefit assessment of boosters in this age group and provide five ethical arguments against mandates. We estimate that 22,000 – 30,000 previously uninfected adults aged 18-29 must be boosted with an mRNA vaccine to prevent one COVID-19 hospitalisation. Using CDC and sponsor-reported adverse event data, we find that booster mandates may cause a net expected harm: per COVID-19 hospitalisation prevented in previously uninfected young adults, we anticipate 18 to 98 serious adverse events, including 1.7 to 3.0 booster-associated myocarditis cases in males, and 1,373 to 3,234 cases of grade ≥3 reactogenicity which interferes with daily activities. Given the high prevalence of post-infection immunity, this risk-benefit profile is even less favourable. University booster mandates are unethical because: 1) no formal risk-benefit assessment exists for this age group; 2) vaccine mandates may result in a net expected harm to individual young people; 3) mandates are not proportionate: expected harms are not outweighed by public health benefits given the modest and transient effectiveness of vaccines against transmission; 4) US mandates violate the reciprocity principle because rare serious vaccine-related harms will not be reliably compensated due to gaps in current vaccine injury schemes; and 5) mandates create wider social harms. We consider counter-arguments such as a desire for socialisation and safety and show that such arguments lack scientific and/or ethical support. Finally, we discuss the relevance of our analysis for current 2-dose CCOVIDovid-19 vaccine mandates in North America.
Impaired immunity is about the worst “side effect” from COVID vaccines that the majority of Americans would want to avoid, not run towards, seeing as how so many people are already suffering from obesity, cancer, heart disease, diabetes and dementia. Fear of COVID outweighed the fear of this because people have been brainwashed by their televisions, their newspapers and those pharma-shilling websites, so they run out and get jabbed up with Fauci Flu shots to try to save themselves from sure destruction, when that ironically is what they are injected with.
The already-immune-compromised “sheeple” are getting “shot” up with millions of toxic prions (that keep multiplying as mRNA) that drive chronic inflammation, while devastating the immune system, which in turn exacerbates their current health “conditions,” (preventable diseases and disorders), and sometimes to the point of “unexplainable” sudden death.
Is it too late for the injected sheeple? Can they sue? Will the next “flu” kill them all off, or will it be unexplainable, sudden-inflicted myocarditis? Are all the microscopic blood clots the REASON for the heart irregularities, cancer reemergence and spontaneous abortions? This deserves careful consideration. Time to take an inside look.
While fighting cancer with chemicals that spread cancer, Dan Bongino went and did the unthinkable – he got “vaccinated” with millions of prions that cause all of the body system issues that literally fuel cancer development, including inflammation, immune system dysfunction, pollution of the cleansing organs and massive stress. That’s why health advocates avoid the Fauci Flu shots like the plague, and that’s why they’re nicknamed “clot shots” and “death stabs.”
Dan Bongino, a former Secret Service agent, just blew the whistle on the establishment, the vaccine industrial complex, and he says he fell for the ploy because he was “scared.” Well, fear is big business in America, and Pharma is running the whole gamut, play by play.
As Tucker Carlson revealed on Fox News (he’s the only real truth seeker left at the network), the COVID vaccine’s suppression of the immune system has a “wide range of consequences, not the least of which include the reactivation of latent viral infections and the reduced ability to effectively combat future infections.”
Let that sink in for a minute … “the reduced ability to effectively combat future infections.” Isn’t that cancer? That’s the last thing any person fighting cancer should ever do to their body, but it’s the first thing everyone jumped to do that lost the virus mania “fear” battle with their (fake news) television and the highly corrupt CDC – Centers for Disease Continuance.
There’s a huge black hole for the COVID-vaccine-injured sheeple who hope to win lawsuits trying to sue anyone who pushed the vaccines on them
Law firms are litigating more vaccine-related injury claims than ever before in the history of vaccines, but that doesn’t mean they’re winning the cases or even gaining settlements for their clients. Big Pharma and crooked Congress have created a massive wall, a legal barrier, to protect their own interests and agenda in depopulation and population control. How? They can’t be sued for injury, wrong-doing, conspiring to kill – anything. The entire industry (the vaccine industrial complex) is immune from the Constitution.
Law firms are covered up trying to handle all the vaccine-related injury cases that involve people suddenly suffering from blood clots and cardiac inflammation. In fact, these lawyers are so covered up with filings, while gaining little traction as far as winning cases or money, that they’re starting to turn people away, saying “you have the right to file” but that you also “have the right to lose.”
Bookmark Vaccines.news to your favorite independent websites for updates on experimental “vaccines” that cause blood clots, myocarditis, chronic inflammation and post-vaccine-regret.
Authors: Jim Hoft September 7, 2022 The Gateway Pundit
A peer-reviewed study in Italy found that 94% of people who experienced side effects after receiving mRNA vaccines had abnormal blood and contained foreign matter one month after vaccination, Epoch Times reported.
Starting in March 2021, three Italian surgeons analyzed peripheral blood, using a single drop from each of 1,006 symptomatic participants who had had at least one mRNA injection (from Pfizer or Moderna.)
According to the study, “there were 948 subjects (94% of the total sample) whose blood showed aggregation of erythrocytes and the presence of particles of various shapes and sizes of unclear origin one month after the mRNA inoculation.”
Erythrocytes also known as red blood cells contain a protein called hemoglobin, which carries oxygen from the lungs to all parts of the body.
“In 12 subjects, blood was examined with the same method before vaccination, showing a perfectly normal hematological distribution. The alterations found after the inoculation of the mRNA injections further reinforce the suspicion that the modifications were due to the so-called “vaccines” themselves. We report 4 clinical cases, chosen as representative of the entire case series. Further studies are needed to define the exact nature of the particles found in the blood and to identify possible solutions to the problems they are evidently causing,” it added.
“Of the 1,006 subjects, 426 were males and 580 were females and 141 of them received only a single dose of the mRNA experimental injection, 453 got a second dose, and 412 received a third dose. The average age of the 1,006 subjects was 49 years and their age ranged from 15-85. On the average, 5.77% of the 1,006 individuals had normal blood samples in spite of their COVID-19 symptoms,” according to the study.
“The remaining 94.23% had abnormal blood samples as illustrated in the 4 cases we selected out of the 12 who were normal before receiving any mRNA injections but were no longer normal afterward. For each case, a drop of blood was drawn by pricking a finger and was analyzed under a ZEISS Primostar orLEITZ Laborlux 12 dark-field microscope. The observation of the blood under an optical microscope in a dark-field took place an average of thirty days after the last inoculation,” the study added.
“Our findings, however, are bolstered by their parallel analysis of the fluids in vials of the mRNA concoctions alongside centrifuged plasma samples from the cases they studied intensively. What seems plain enough is that metallic particles resembling graphene oxide and possibly other metallic compounds, like those discovered by Gatti and Montanari, have been included in the cocktail of whatever the manufacturers have seen fit to put in the so-called mRNA “vaccines.”
The surgeons believed that the vaccine makers should provide an explanation as to what is within the shots and why those components are present.
“In our experience as clinicians, these mRNA injections are very unlike traditional “vaccines” and their manufacturers need, in our opinions, to come clean about what is in the injections and why it is there,” they said.
These photos are at 40x magnification. At the left side, (a) shows the blood condition of the patient before the inoculation. The right side image, (b) shows the same person’s blood one month after the first dose of Pfizer mRNA “vaccine”. Particles can be seen among the red blood cells which are strongly conglobated around the exogenous particles; the agglomeration is believed to reflect a reduction in zeta potential adversely affecting the normal colloidal distribution of erythrocytes as see at the left. The red blood cells at the right (b) are no longer spherical and are clumping as in coagulation and clotting. (Source: IJVTPR)
The image at 120x magnification shows two exogenous particles and clusters of fibrin 2 months after vaccination. (Source: IJVTPR)
This image at 120x magnification (3x magnification digitally produced)highlights a typical self-aggregating structuring in fibro/tubular mode.Figure 2. In this case the assembly of particles takes on crystalline features; furthermore, there is an area of close influence, butterfly wings, in the context of which a crystalline type organization occurs.Figure 3. The image at 120x magnification shows two exogenous particles and clusters of fibrin 2 months after vaccination. (Source: IJVTPR)
Case No. 1:
“This individual is a male of 33 years, who formerly was an athlete, apparently healthy before inoculation with an mRNA Pfizer injection. One month after receiving the first dose of the Pfizer “vaccine”, he showed marked asthenia, a constant gravitational headache (i.e., one sensitive to the position and movements of his head and body such that the pain was increased by movement of the head up or down). The headaches were unresponsive to common painkillers. Diffuse rheumatic arthralgia with dyspnea on exertion were noted.” See illustration below:
(a) The photo on the left at 40x magnification shows the blood condition of the patient before the inoculation. (b)The image on the right, also at 40x magnification, shows the deformation of the erythrocyte cell profile, and the strong tendency for the deformed erythrocytes to aggregate. (Source: IJTPVR)
Case No. 2:
Advertisement – story continues below
“This case was a woman 54 years old whose symptoms included the drug-resistant severe headache, profound worsening asthenia, sleep/wake rhythm disorders, generalized paresthesia and dysesthesia, psychic manifestations with depressive mood after the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine.” Her blood story is captured below:
(a) Deformation and erythrocyte aggregation with signs of hemolysis at 40x magnification. (b) A foreign crystallized tubular structure at 120x magnification. (Source: IJTPVR)
(a) Aggregated/conglobated erythrocytes, with hemolysis, and clustered fibrinat 40x magnification. (b) A blowup of a foreign complex crystalline structureat 120x magnification.Figure 8. (a) Deformation and erythrocyte aggregation with signs of hemolysis at 40x magnification. (b) A foreign crystallized tubular structure at 120x magnification. (Source: IJTPVR)
Authors: Jim Hoft eptember 10, 2022 The Gateway Pundit
Around 403 doctors, scientists, and professionals from more than 34 countries declared that there is an international medical crisis due to the diseases and deaths following the administration of products known as “COVID-19 vaccines,” according to James Roguski Substack.
“We are currently witnessing an excess in mortality in those countries where the majority of the population has received the so-called “COVID-19 vaccines,” according to the news release. “To date, this excess mortality has neither been sufficiently investigated nor studied by national and international health institutions.”
The large number of sudden deaths in previously healthy young people who were inoculated with these “vaccines”, is particularly worrying, as is the high incidence of miscarriages and perinatal deaths which have not been investigated.
A large number of adverse side effects, including hospitalisations, permanent disabilities and deaths related to the so-called “COVID-19 vaccines”, have been reported officially. The registered number has no precedent in world vaccination history.
Examining the reports on CDC’s VAERS, the UK’s Yellow Card System, the Australian Adverse Event Monitoring System, Europe’s EudraVigilance System and the WHO’s VigiAccess Database, to date there have been more than 11 million reports of adverse effects and more than 70,000 deaths co-related to the inoculation of the products known as “covid vaccines”. We know that these numbers just about represent between 1% and 10% of all real events.
Therefore, we consider that we are facing a serious international medical crisis, which must be accepted and treated as critical by all states, health institutions and medical personnel worldwide. Therefore, the following measures must be undertaken on an urgent basis:
A worldwide ‘stop’ to the national inoculation campaigns with the products known as “COVID-19 vaccines”.
Investigation of all sudden deaths of people who were healthy previous to the inoculation.
Implementation of early detection programmes of cardiovascular events which could lead to sudden deaths with analysis such as D-dimer and Troponin, in all those that were inoculated with the products known as “COVID-19 vaccines”, as well as the early detection of serious tumours.
Implementation of research and treatment programmes for victims of adverse effects after receiving the so called “COVID-19 vaccine”.
Undertaking analyses of the composition of vials of Pfizer, Moderna, Astra Zeneca, Janssen, Sinovac, Sputnik V and any other product known as “COVID-19 vaccines”, by independent research groups with no affiliation to pharmaceutical companies, nor any conflict of interest.
Studies to be conducted on the interactions between the different components of the so called “COVID-19 vaccines” and their molecular, cellular and biological effects.
Implemention of psychological help and compensation programmes for any person that has developed a disease or disability as a consequence of the so called “COVID-19 vaccines”.
Implemention and promotion of psychological help and compensation programmes for the family members of any person who died as a result of having been inoculated with the product known as “Covid-19 vaccines”.
Consequently we declare that we find ourselves in an unprecedented international medical crisis in the history of medicine, due to the large number of diseases and deaths associated with the “vaccines against Covid-19”. Therefore, we demand that the regulatory agencies that oversee drug safety as well as the health institutions in all countries, together with the international institutions such as the WHO, PHO, EMA, FDA, UK-MHRA and NIH respond to this declaration and act in accordance with the eight measures demanded in this manifesto.
This Declaration is a joint initiative of several professionals who have been fighting for this cause. We call on all doctors, scientists and professionals to endorse this statement in order to put pressure on the entities involved and promote a more transparent health policy, do consider signing.
On Saturday, September 10, 2022, leading physicians from all around India also members of the Universal Health Organization (UHO) convened virtually with doctors from 34 other countries to sign a Declaration of International Medical Crisis.
UHO is a forum to ensure impartial, truthful, unbiased and relevant information on health reaches every citizen of the world to make informed choices pertaining to their health.
UHO is a forum to ensure impartial, truthful, unbiased and relevant information on health reaches every citizen of the world to make informed choices pertaining to their health.
The Food and Drug Administration said the shot should only be given to adults who cannot receive a different vaccine or specifically request J&J’s vaccine. U.S. authorities for months have recommended that Americans starting their COVID-19 vaccinations use the Pfizer or Moderna shots instead.
FDA officials said in a statement that they decided to restrict J&J’s vaccine after taking another look at data on the risk of life-threatening blood clots within two weeks of vaccination.
J&J’s vaccine was initially considered an important tool in fighting the pandemic because it required only one shot. But the single-dose option proved less effective than two doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.
Under the new FDA instructions, J&J’s vaccine could still be given to people who had a severe allergic reaction to one of the other vaccines and can’t receive an additional dose. J&J’s shot could also be an option for people who refuse to receive the mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna, and therefore would otherwise remain unvaccinated, the agency said.
A J&J spokesman said in an emailed statement: “Data continue to support a favorable benefit-risk profile for the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine in adults, when compared with no vaccine.”
Despite the restriction, FDA’s vaccine chief Dr. Peter Marks said J&J’s vaccine “still has a role in the current pandemic response in the United States and across the global community.”
The FDA based its decision on “our safety surveillance systems and our commitment to ensuring that science and data guide our decisions
The clotting problems first came up last spring, with the J&J shot in the U.S. and with a similar vaccine made by AstraZeneca that is used in other countries. At that time, U.S. regulators decided the benefits of J&J’s one-and-done vaccine outweighed what was considered a very rare risk — as long as recipients were warned.
COVID-19 causes deadly blood clots, too. But the vaccine-linked kind is different, believed to form because of a rogue immune reaction to the J&J and AstraZeneca vaccines because of how they’re made. It forms in unusual places, such as veins that drain blood from the brain, and in patients who also develop abnormally low levels of the platelets that form clots. Symptoms of the unusual clots include severe headaches a week or two after the J&J vaccination — not right away — as well as abdominal pain and nausea.
The New Brunswick, New Jersey-based company announced last month that it didn’t expect a profit from the vaccine this year and was suspending sales projections.
The rollout of the company’s vaccine was hurt by a series of troubles, including manufacturing problems at a Baltimore factory that forced J&J to import millions of doses from overseas.
Additionally, regulators added warnings about the blood clots and a rare neurological reaction called Guillain-Barré syndrome.
Pfizer and Moderna have provided the vast majority of COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S. More than 200 million Americans have been fully vaccinated with the companies’ two-dose shots while less than 17 million Americans got the J&J shot.