Top US Hospital: For Every Vaccine Dose, Rate of COVID-19 Infection Goes Up

FORT WORTH, TEXAS—A top U.S. hospital has a study in pre-print that shows the more COVID-19 shots their employees get, the higher their chance is of catching COVID-19 itself.

The Cleveland Clinic is the world’s largest network of hospitals and outpatient facilities.

“When a study comes out of Cleveland Clinic, people take it very seriously,” said Steve Kirsch on Frontline Health.

Kirsch is a tech entrepreneur, inventor of the optical mouse and founder of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation.

“The bottom line here is that if the medical community was honest, they need to now reverse the mandates,” he said.

“And by reverse mandates, I mean that every hospital in the world should now say, if you got the vaccine, you’re fired.”

The logic here is that if the vaccinated healthcare workers are more vulnerable to catching COVID-19, they pose a greater risk to patients. And since the U.S. is still in a state of emergency, Kirsch says that the hospitals need to stay consistent and protect their patients.

“They need to then rehire the [unvaccinated] people that they fired,” he said.

We spoke with Kirsch at the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) second Education Conference.

———–

? Support The Epoch Times: get the best coffee roasted in America at 15% off with code Health15 at DayesCoffee.com

———–

INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT:

Dan Skorbach:
Let’s talk about Cleveland Clinic study. Why is it important?

Steve Kirsch:
Cleveland Clinic is rated the number two hospital in the world. So when a study comes out of Cleveland Clinic, people take it very seriously. And this study was devastating for the vaccine.

They were trying to show that the boosters have efficacy. So they believe that there’s a 30 percent vaccine efficacy for the booster shot. But as part of the paper, they showed figure two, and figure two says, “Hey, if we start looking at a group of 51,000 employees of the Cleveland Clinic spread throughout the country, and we look at the number of vaccine doses that they have, that the risk of them being infected actually increases for every single dose of the vaccine that they get.”

If you’re unvaccinated, you’re less likely to get COVID. If you have one dose, you’re more likely to get COVID, you have two doses, you’re way more likely to get COVID, if you have three doses, etc. And they showed this consistently over a 90-day observation period for the 51,000 people. And they’re all divided into different groups. It’s all working-age health care workers, not people who are sick in the hospital. These are employees of the Cleveland Clinic. And they basically measured how their vaccination status impacts their risk of getting COVID. And they found the opposite of what we were being told, the precise opposite.

Because we were told, “Oh, you get more vaccine doses, you’re going to be less likely to be infected.” That wasn’t the case at all. It was completely opposite to the narrative.

And this is why when this paper was put out on a preprint server, it’s never somehow made it into the published literature to let people know, “Yes, it passed peer-review.”

It is totally counter-narrative.

Natural Infection

Mr. Kirsch:
And it also showed, in figure one, that if you got infected—that the more recently you were infected, the more protective it is—which totally makes sense, right? We’ve known that for years. If you got infected with a recent variant, you’re not going to get infected with that variant again. It’s very unlikely. If you got infected with the original variant, you’re much more likely to be infected. If you haven’t been infected at all, you’re more likely to be infected. So that’s based on the infection status. So the point is that infections—natural infections—are protective—exactly what people have been saying.

But figure two looked at your vaccination status. And it was the precise opposite of what people expected. And so this is why it’s so devastating, is because it’s counter-narrative. And because nobody has been able to explain how that could possibly happen if the vaccines are truly reducing your risk of getting COVID. And that’s the big problem.

And so what happens is, there are some articles out that say, “Oh, this study showed it was a 30 percent reduction. See? It worked. The vaccines work.”

No—but the studies also pointed out that the more you were vaccinated, the more likely you were to get COVID. And the study also said, “Hm this is very strange. “

Pfizer Phase III Trial

Mr. Kirsch:
But we’re not the only people to have seen this. There are two other papers that showed this. And in fact, they missed one—and this is the big one because this is the Pfizer phase three trial.

They filed with the FDA in September of 2021 a document. And on page 22, is the killer statistics. It basically showed that the number of infections per 1,000 man years of people in the study was about 70. That’s for people who got the vaccine early, that they were part of the vaccine group. So they had 70 infections per 1,000 person-years.

And what was stunning is that the people in the placebo group only had a little bit more than 50 infections. But you see, those people started in the placebo group, and then they crossed over, because they said, “Oh, well, now we’re unblinding, and you should get the vaccine.”

And so they all got the vaccine. So they switched over to the vaccine group. So they were unvaccinated for the first four months or so, and then they switched over and were vaccinated for four months. Now, if you do the math, it turns out that during the unvaccinated time, they had to have been half as likely to have gotten infected as the vaccinated time. And so here, again, you’re seeing two doses, twice as likely to be infected.

And so it wasn’t just the two papers, but it was also in the gold standard Pfizer phase three trial, and the FDA knew about this in September of 2021. And they didn’t say a word to anyone, because anyone could have done the math at that time and figured out that you were twice as likely to be infected with COVID, if you got two shots. So they didn’t say anything to the public.

So here we have the evidence in plain sight of public view. Nobody did the calculation to discover that. And then you have this Cleveland Clinic study that shows the same thing. And they’re citing other studies—you now have four studies.

And of course, you have lots of anecdotes of people. I can’t tell you how many people have come to me and said, “You know, I didn’t get vaccinated, and I didn’t get COVID. But all my friends were vaccinated—they’re suffering from COVID.” And in fact, even the Pfizer study said the people who had the worst cases of COVID were the people in the vaccine group. So it’s all consistent. The anecdotes are consistent with the randomized trial.

‘Hand-Waving’ Attacks on the Cleveland Study

And the troubling thing is that when these people try to attack the paper, some of them will say, “Oh, well, it’s not peer-reviewed.” Well, that’s a cop out. You can look at the paper yourself, and you can see—the peer-reviewers are going to do the same thing that you are. Look at the paper. Did you find an error in the paper? Did you find an error in the methodology? Was it unfair? No, it was totally fair, because all the groups started exactly at the same starting point. Some people had one dose, two dose, no dose, three dose, four dose—they all were tracked from the same point in time. And they were all employees of the same institution in different states. And they all had the same stats. And the effects were statistically significant. And the error bars didn’t overlap. In other words, there could be statistical noise. But it’s very clear that two doses were worse than one dose.

So this is something that whenever I ask people about it, they can try to make up excuses. Like I’m debating with someone on Twitter. And he says, “Okay, okay, so the table does show that it is more likely, but that doesn’t mean that it was caused by the vaccine. There might be some confounding variable that’s causing that effect, that’s fooling us. And the vaccines are really effective, but there’s something else that causes this dose dependency.: And I said, “Well, it satisfies the Bradford Hill criteria.” And there are five criteria for Bradford Hill when it’s applied to vaccines. And so I said, “Look, which of the five do you think didn’t satisfy?” He said, “Well, you never described each of the five and said what it was.” Okay, so now I just finished writing. “Here are all five in great detail to show how all five are satisfied. Tell me where I made the mistake.” So we’re at this level of, “Let me try to find something wrong.”

It’s almost like the more they try to attack this, the sillier they look because it’s all these hand-waving attacks—“you didn’t prove that it was caused by the vaccine.” And so they’re flailing, trying to explain this.

But it’s not just one paper, right? It’s those two other papers. And it’s the Pfizer study. And then it’s all this anecdotal stuff. It’s a little hard to explain all of those things away if there isn’t causality—and we have a mechanism of action. You have the toll-like receptors, which are affected, you have class switching of antibodies, class switching to IgG4, which then reduces your body’s propensity to go and fight the spike protein—an infection that has spike protein. And so they’re all of these mechanisms, which totally explain why this is happening, why the more you get vaccinated the more you get infected.

‘Fire’ the Vaccinated Medical Workers?

So the bottom line here is that if the medical community was honest, they need to now do reverse mandates. And by reverse mandates, I mean that every hospital in the world should now say, “If you got the vaccine, you’re fired. You need to show us proof of un-vaccination. You need to show us that you’re back to an unvaccinated state because otherwise you’re at a higher risk and we can’t have a higher risk.” Right, just like they thought the … unvaccinated were at higher risk. Now we actually know it’s the opposite. And so if the hospitals are being consistent—which I’m assuming that they would be because they need to protect patients—they need to fire everyone who’s been vaccinated. They need to then rehire the people that they fired. So they need to fix their mistake, because we have to protect patients, because we’re in a state of emergency.

As we all know, the FDA has not revoked the state of emergency. These EUA drugs are still there, which means we must be in an emergency. If we’re in an emergency, it is incumbent upon all these hospitals to have reverse mandates. I don’t see any other way. You have to be logically consistent. You’re out to protect the patients. You were saying, “Oh, we have to reduce the risk that the patient would be exposed to COVID.” And they believed that [it would be] the vaccine—but now it turns out, it’s the opposite. So we need to be consistent. We need to fire everyone who was vaccinated.

Mr. Skorbach:
That “logically” makes sense.

Mr. Kirsch:
Yes.

Now if we’re wrong, that’s a bad thing. So we’d like to find out if we’re wrong, but if they’re wrong, then those people that are getting the boosters are making a big mistake.

Look, if we want to end the misinformation, it will never, ever happen through censorship.

This transcript has been edited for brevity and clarity by Anna Varavva.

Watch Part 2 of this interview here.

———–

Medical Disclaimer:

Frontline Health (the “Show”), its guests, and contributors provide the latest news on health and medical discoveries and it is meant for informational purposes only. The Show does not provide medical advice, diagnosis, treatment, cures, mitigation, or prevention for any type of disease or medical condition. Similarly, it is not intended for self-diagnosis or self-treating of any health-related condition.

The information on the Show is gathered from reputable sources; however, neither Frontline Health nor The Epoch Times Association Inc. are responsible for errors or omissions in reporting or explanation and will not be liable for any direct, indirect, consequential, special, exemplary, or other damages arising therefrom.

Patients should always consult with a doctor or other health care professional for medical advice or information about diagnosis and treatment.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. Epoch Health welcomes professional discussion and friendly debate. To submit an opinion piece, please follow these guidelines and submit through our form here.