The European Union’s official “vaccination” strategy has just been thrown into disarray after a major multicountry study confirmed that Pfizer’s Covid mRNA “booster” shot is ineffective against COVID-19.
The study raises significant concerns about governments’ “vaccination” campaigns after the study found that the “vaccine” has zero effectiveness against the virus it’s supposed to tackle.
The findings confirm previous warnings that the risks of mRNA “vaccines” far outweigh any potential benefits.
The study was led by James Humphreys of Epiconcept (Paris) and coordinated through the VEBIS-EHR Network.
The results of the study were published in the MedRxiv journal.
It has delivered a sobering assessment of the real-world effectiveness of Pfizer’s XBB.1.5 Covid mRNA “booster.”
The study was conducted across six European nations—Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Portugal, Spain (Navarre), and Sweden.
It was funded by the EU’s CDC equivalent, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC).
The study tested the central hypothesis that the XBB.1.5 booster conferred protection against COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths during the 2024 summer wave dominated by immune-evasive KP and JN.1 subvariants.
Officials had warned that older people were more at risk from the subvariants and urged those 65 and older to receive “booster” shots.
Using a retrospective historical cohort design based on harmonized electronic health records, the researchers evaluated over 19 million individuals aged 65 and older, tracking outcomes from June to August 2024.
Cox regression models adjusted for age, comorbidities, sex, and prior boosters were used to estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE).
Pooled hazard ratios were combined via random-effects meta-analysis.
The results are both striking and troubling.
For individuals aged 65–79, VE against hospitalization and death was alarmingly low six months after vaccination.
In the over-80 group, VE against hospitalization and death was close to zero.
Even more concerning, however, was the negative impact of the “vaccines.”
The vaccinated cohort had higher absolute rates of hospitalization and death than the unvaccinated: 6.4 vs. 6.2 per 100,000 person-months for hospitalizations (65–79) and 2.1 vs. 0.9 for deaths.
For those aged 80 and above, the vaccinated group had hospitalization rates of 24.9 vs. 21.9 and death rates of 16.3 vs. 5.6 per 100,000 person-months, respectively.
These paradoxical findings raise severe red flags about the risk versus reward for the injections.
While the vaccinated population did include more individuals with high-risk comorbidities (6.6% vs. 2.1%) and prior boosters (92.7% vs. 32.5%), the direction and magnitude of the absolute risk differences, especially for death, are difficult to overlook.
Heterogeneity across countries was also notable, with some sites (e.g., Belgium) showing negative VE against hospitalization.
Estimates were not possible for most subintervals within 90 days post-vaccination due to insufficient events, meaning protection in the immediate post-booster period remains undefined in this analysis.
This large-scale EHR-based evaluation paints a bleak picture of the XBB.1.5 booster’s performance during the 2024 summer surge in the EU.
With virtually no measurable protection against hospitalization or death in the elderly more than six months post-vaccination, these findings reinforce growing concerns that the injections are ineffective and dangerous.
Moreover, the study raises questions about the utility of seasonal booster strategies without accounting for variant evolution or waning immunity.
European public health authorities may need to re-evaluate guidelines that urge the public to receive the “vaccines.”
This report underscores the need for transparency and urgency in adapting vaccine policy to real-world data rather than modeled assumptions.
The warning signs are no longer subtle.
READ MORE – Florida Health Department Confirms Pfizer Vaccine Killed Over 470,000 Americans
