Anyone posting a threat especially against a law enforcement officer or politician will be banned
3 min read
01 Feb

We recently did an article similar to this one. Thanks to my fellow writer from substack Steve Kirsch.

Executive Summary

Top study shows people with more jabs were more likely to get COVID than people with fewer jabs. They lied, people died.


Here’s Figure 2 from the Cleveland Clinic study (posted December 19, 2022) which looked at 51,011 working-age people who work at the Cleveland Clinic who have various vaccination status.People with more jabs were more likely to get COVID than people with fewer jabs. They started the clock for everyone at the same time: on the day the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine first became available to employees. As you can see, people with more shots were more likely to get COVID and the differences were statistically significant.

Attempts to debunk the study

The pro-vaccine camp HATES this study because it goes against the narrative. If the study proved their point, they’d be praising it and not criticizing it at all.

!Eugene Gu said that it wasn’t peer-reviewed! This is typical. Rather than attack the data or a mistake, point out that the journals aren’t going to publish it. Debunk the Funk created a YouTube video where he said that the start point was arbitrarily chosen and that the y-axis was “not huge.

” The y-axis is linear and the differences at day 91 are statistically significant. I’m serious. Listen at 1:08 in the video. This guy is a PhD!!!Then he said look at this other study which didn’t measure the same thing. If you want to debunk the study, Mr. Funk, you need to show a comparable study that showed a different result. There isn’t one because nobody will get such a study published because it goes against the narrative. Duh.

This test was fair. Everyone started off at the same point in time, it’s the Cleveland Clinic employees who are regularly tested, and it’s all working age people. It’s real-world study. 

The sizes in the groups were sufficient to establish statistical significance of the result. The pro-vax community hates this but as you can see from “Debunk the Funk”’s video, they cannot find a way to dispute it.

Oh, and he said the study wasn’t well designed. Wow. For the purposes of Figure 2, what was the DESIGN FLAW that they could have fixed? He doesn’t mention that. The study is real world at the hospital. I don’t know what more they could have done, do you?

The elephant in the room

Thank you to Alex Berenson

Thanks to Alex Berenson for writing about this.Alex also wrote just now about the Chinese study showing after 4 shots of the vaccine, your immune system is damaged and it’s not clear for how long. But it was in humanized mice, not people. You should read his post. This is important.He wrote:

Mice who received more than four Covid vaccine jabs had a collapse in their ability to fight the coronavirus, Chinese researchers have found.


Last month, researchers at the Cleveland Clinic reported that they had found “the higher the number of vaccines previously received, the higher the risk of contracting COVID-19."And last week a very large French study reported that a second mRNA booster was less effective than the first at every comparable time interval - and that after four months it actually raised the risk for infection compared to people who had not received it.

My polls

They consistently show the more jabs, the worse the outcomes.For boosters, only 1 place out of 102 reported they were beneficial. How will they explain that one? Can we see THEIR data?


The Cleveland Clinic study kills the narrative. The authors are pro-vaccine!The result was clear: the more shots you get, the more likely you are to get COVID. That’s why the study wasn’t covered by any mainstream media. And banned from YouTube.

And that’s why this study by top people at the Cleveland Clinic will never be published in the peer-reviewed scientific journals. Because that’s the way science works.

Anyone posting a threat especially against a law enforcement officer or politician will be banned.Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.