BREAKING: New Data: COVID-19 Vax is (bluntly) Ineffective!

As we’ve recently seen, a good swath of universities have begun pushing new COVID-19 vaccine mandates, it’s crucial to assess whether this strategy is still justified. I think you know the answer.

Our friend Dr. Tracy Høeg’s recent analysis of Cleveland Clinic data on the 2023-2024 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine suggests that the answer is no. The findings indicate that not only is the vaccine’s effectiveness questionable, but prior doses may actually increase the risk of infection.

The Data: More Doses, More Risk?

The Cleveland Clinic study reveals a troubling pattern: the unadjusted cumulative COVID-19 incidence was virtually the same for vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Some point to an adjusted vaccine effectiveness of 23%, but this figure vanishes when controlling for prior vaccine doses. In fact, the data shows that the more doses someone received, the more likely they were to contract COVID-19 during the study.

This paradox — more vaccinations correlating with more infections — raises serious questions. Even if confounding factors are involved, the data still challenges the justification for ongoing vaccine mandates. Why require more doses if they seem to increase long-term infection risk?

Transparency and Long-Term Concerns

One key takeaway from Høeg’s analysis is the importance of presenting both adjusted and unadjusted data. The adjusted analysis suggests a slight initial effectiveness, but this is overshadowed by the increasing risk linked to multiple prior doses. This calls into question the long-term strategy of continually boosting populations, especially when institutions mandate vaccines without fully considering potential risks.

Universities, which often highlight the short-term benefits of vaccination, should not ignore the possibility that repeated doses could cause more harm than good. For young, low-risk populations like students, who already have natural immunity from prior infections, this approach makes even less sense.

The Need for Randomized Data

Dr. Høeg also stresses the necessity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to truly understand the real-world efficacy of these vaccines. The Cleveland Clinic study began at the end of December 2023, meaning it may have missed some early, short-term effectiveness, but the critical issue remains: Are we seeing long-term protection or increased vulnerability?

Without RCTs that look at broader outcomes like hospitalizations and deaths, there’s little justification for continued mandates, particularly when the data suggests the vaccine may be less effective over time. Mandating something with uncertain benefits — and possible risks — doesn’t align with evidence-based public health policy.

Burdening Low-Risk Populations

Universities cite community protection as a reason for vaccine mandates, but younger populations, particularly students, are at very low risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Forcing them to get repeated doses of a vaccine that may offer minimal or no protection against infection — and could increase the risk of getting COVID — imposes unnecessary burdens.

Students face not only financial costs but also the potential for unknown long-term consequences of repeated vaccinations. Mandates that target low-risk groups, in light of questionable vaccine effectiveness, seem misguided and even counterproductive.

What About the New Vaccine Formulation?

Dr. Høeg’s analysis makes her skeptical about the effectiveness of the 2024-2025 mRNA formulation. While there may be some hope that this new version will target emerging variants, previous patterns of diminishing returns from repeated doses cast doubt on this. Without solid, randomized data showing significant long-term benefits, there’s little reason to believe that another round of vaccines will have a meaningful impact on infection rates.

The Risk-Benefit Reality: A Study That Shouldn't Be Ignored

It's worth recalling the bombshell study shared by Tracy Høeg and other champions of "Team Reality," which laid bare the serious risks associated with vaccine mandates, especially for young adults. In 2022, a study found that for every COVID-19 hospitalization prevented in young adults aged 18-29, at least 18.5 serious vaccine-induced injuries occurred. This includes cases of myopericarditis—particularly among males—which often require hospitalization, and thousands of incidents of grade 3 reactogenicity, causing severe interference with daily activities.

In light of this, it’s clear that booster mandates for students, like those seen at many North American universities, are not only ethically questionable but potentially harmful. These mandates are based on outdated risk assessments, fail to deliver long-term benefits, and leave individuals facing severe adverse effects without adequate compensation. The push for these mandates doesn’t just overlook the science—it actively creates more harm than good. This study, combined with the data from Cleveland Clinic, serves as a stark reminder that it’s time to rethink the vaccine mandate strategy for younger, healthier populations.

Conclusion: Rethinking Vaccine Mandates

The Cleveland Clinic data, paired with Dr. Høeg’s analysis, challenges the rationale for current COVID-19 vaccine mandates. The finding that prior doses may increase infection risk is concerning, and the absence of clear, randomized data makes the push for more vaccines difficult to justify.

In the absence of solid evidence proving the long-term benefits of repeated vaccinations, universities and institutions should reconsider their mandates. Forcing students — particularly those in low-risk categories — to comply with policies based on shaky science not only fails to protect them but may also cause harm. It’s time for a more thoughtful, evidence-based approach to COVID-19 vaccination.

Other terrific findings by Tracy & others