Covid in Austria: Nat'l Immunisation Consortium Recommends 4th Jab, because the EMA says so and, citing dated studies, gaslights the public

Trick question of the day: is this still arrogance+ignorance or should we talk about negligence, malfeasance, and criminal law instead?

As this epic late summer turns into autumn, replete with colourful leaves and cooler temperatures, we enter the twilight zone of respiratory illnesses coupled with the potentially harmful side-effects of mRNA-based Covid injections.

Almost on time, with no big drama playing out after the Committee of Public Safety having declared that ‘school start like before Corona’, the kids are alright. There was, according to the absence of official declarations—and media gaslighting to push it—no (significant, i.e., ‘news-worthy’) outbreak of Covid among the country’s pupils.

It is almost as if the single rtPCR test that was ‘offered’ in week 1 of the schoolyear, which was followed by a ‘mere’ three lateral flow tests (in the same week) and another one in the week thereafter had done what all the mandates, intrusive measures, and absurdities peddled by legacy media have failed to do: end the Covid mania among the schoolchildren.

Yet, while this is quite good news, the skies on the horizon are darkening again.

National Injection Consortium (NIC) Offers New Guidance

As reported across legacy media, the NIC has ‘amended its recommendations’ (this one comes courtesy of state broadcaster ORF Online; my emphases):

Triple-vaccinated individuals who have also had an Omicron infection (BA.1, BA.2 or BA.4, BA.5) show a good booster response and immunity to BA.4/BA.515, 16, 17, 18, they say. Especially those under 60 years of age may postpone the booster for the time being under such conditions.

Up to six months after the infection, the booster is not expected to improve immune protection for this group, ‘and thus the fourth vaccination can be postponed accordingly’, say the experts. Respiratory infections, however, do not leave a lasting systemic immunity. ‘Thus, in any case, for a broad and well-developed immunity situation with regard to SARS-CoV-2, persons aged five years and older need a basic immunisation consisting of three vaccinations (schedule 2+1), regardless of infections they have had’, it was further emphasised.

I’ve simply highlighted the amorphous nature of these statements, as if all those ‘experts’ who so dearly love media attention have decided not to put their mouths next to these words anymore.

I do wonder, though, as to why, since infection doesn’t count as ‘an immunological event’ (background here, although it’s the same link as the first on in this article), ‘the experts’ now put their name next something as patently illogical as this:

Respiratory infections, however, do not leave a lasting systemic immunity. ‘Thus, in any case, for a broad and well-developed immunity situation…persons aged five years and older need a basic immunisation consisting of three vaccinations

If you’re left scratching your head after reading this twice, welcome to the club.

If the interval is too short, ‘booster response may be limited’.

‘Vaccination despite previous infection does no harm, but if the recommended interval is not reached, the booster response may be limited and in individual cases lead to increased vaccination reactions’, it was stated. Unrecognised asymptomatic or not clarified/lab-confirmed mild infections could be ignored and vaccinations could be carried out according to the intended schedule. According to these recommendations, persons with PCR-confirmed infection before the first vaccination or in the interval between the first and second vaccination should be vaccinated from about four weeks after the expired infection (negative PCR test) or recovery.

I ‘hate’ to break it to ‘the experts’, but this is BS. There is so much evidence now that infection conveys more durable, broader immunity—as per esp. the Qatar study by Altarawhneh et al. (NEJM 2022, 387:21-34, doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2203965), and don’t miss Dr. Paul Alexander’s dedicated piece that should end any discussion of ‘hybrid immunity’—which is why all the above recommendations will do is created more harm.

I do wonder, though, when we started to hand out vaccines (in the pre-Covid sense) like lollipops for those who contracted, say, measles. Oh, wait, we didn’t. Gee, I wonder as to why…it’s better though, to keep these nagging questions at bay lest the hoi polloi gets uppity.

Personally, the most absurd notion is the complete destruction of ‘asymptomatic spread’ by the NIC. Re-read the following sentence:

Unrecognised asymptomatic or not clarified/lab-confirmed mild infections could be ignored and vaccinations could be carried out according to the intended schedule.

I mean, sure, if I don’t know I’m sick, why should I care? As a follow-up, if I didn’t recognise and/or got tested for anything, why should I respond with a very specific medical intervention? In addition, shouldn’t I talk to one or more doctors if said medical intervention is actually warranted?

Instead, the NIC merely recommends this:

For persons with PCR-confirmed infection after two or more vaccinations, the following applies: In the case of an asymptomatic course, vaccination according to the schedule is possible, but a postponement of up to six months is also possible; after symptomatic infection, especially those under 60 years of age can wait up to six months. In the case of older people and people at risk - in this case irrespective of age - vaccination can also be carried out before the six months are reached after recovery, according to the NIC.

This is about as much as anyone needs to know: it’s a kinda free-for-all, and if you wish, you may get injected at any time, irrespective of clinical indication, and/or the planned schedule.

Upon reading these absurdities, I ventured over to the NIC’s website to figure out if that’s actually true; here’s the link, here’s the supraordinate website (in German)—and, lo and behold, what we actually got isn’t ‘a new recommendation’ but merely ‘an addition’ (Ergänzung).

So, if you venture to that ‘addition’, you get to see this:

The highlighted sentence reads:

Vaccination despite previous infection does no harm, but the booster response may be limited if the recommended interval is not reached.

Footnotes 13 and 14 would include these two studies:

A pre-print by Buckner et al. (i.e., it’s not peer-reviewed, as opposed to the above-cited Qatar study), which lists, among others, ‘The Science’ Tony Fauci as one of the co-authors.

Curiously, one can, apparently, use the below word-salad in the third year of Covid:

Let’s briefly check in with the Lancet paper by Munro et al. (Volume 22, ISSUE 8, P1131-1141, 1 August 2022; doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00271-7).

It sure looks ‘better’ than the pre-print discussed above, but I’d add the below screenshot to show the main problem (which is both epistemological in terms of scientific enquiry as well as replete with design problems, to say nothing about legal implications)

So, the paper by Munro et al. was published on 9 May 2022, which, in terms of Covid variant-of-concern timing is about twice a lifetime ago. Sure, there’s a link that allows you to ‘check for updates’, but when one clicks on it, one receives the assurance that the ‘document is current’.

So, what did Munro et al. do? (All emphases mine.)

Background

Some high-income countries have deployed fourth doses of COVID-19 vaccines, but the clinical need, effectiveness, timing, and dose of a fourth dose remain uncertain. We aimed to investigate the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of fourth-dose boosters against COVID-19.

So far, so fair—keep in mind that the study was published in early May 2022, i.e., it was run in/around the first quarter of 2022, with the remainder of time before publication taken up by peer-review (ahem), revisions, etc.

Methods

The COV-BOOST trial is a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised controlled trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third-dose boosters at 18 sites in the UK. This sub-study enrolled participants who had received BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) as their third dose in COV-BOOST and randomly assigned them (1:1) to receive a fourth dose of either BNT162b2 (30 μg in 0·30 mL; full dose) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna; 50 μg in 0·25 mL; half dose) via intramuscular injection into the upper arm.

So, this is all you need to know about this paper as something that may or may not underwrite public policy with respect to the fourth injections as they are authorised, or recommended, by the European Medicines Agency:

Munro et al. doesn’t relate to the bivalent products recommended by the EMA.

The Austro-Covidian NIC, blindly following EMA guidance, specifically recommends ‘bivalent mRNA injectable products’:

So, in case you actually cared about the ‘findings’ of Munro et al., well, for completeness’ sake, here goes:

Between Jan 11 and Jan 25, 2022, 166 participants were screened, randomly assigned, and received either full-dose BNT162b2 (n=83) or half-dose mRNA-1273 (n=83) as a fourth dose. The median age of these participants was 70.1 years (IQR 51.6–77.5) and 86 (52%) of 166 participants were female and 80 (48%) were male. The median interval between the third and fourth doses was 208·5 days (IQR 203.3–214.8). Pain was the most common local solicited adverse event and fatigue was the most common systemic solicited adverse event after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 booster doses. None of three serious adverse events reported after a fourth dose with BNT162b2 were related to the study vaccine.

So, a small, significantly underpowered study. I’m honestly quite appalled by so many facts revealed by this brief excerpt that I don’t know where to start…

The injectable products used were the ‘legacy’ products, i.e., not the ones recommended today.

Median age was 70 years, i.e., I’m unsure how, given Covid’s completely lopsided age-bias (i.e., kinds, teens, and young adults have a significantly lower risk than septuagenarians), one could plausibly use this trial as an argument to recommend anything to anyone younger than 50?

‘Fatigue was the most common systemic solicited event’—just how widespread, one might wishes to learn? (Appendix 1, pp. 2-3, according to the paper, tells us: one patient was admitted to a hospital due to ‘a small bowel obstruction…unrelated to study vaccine’.)

Here’s what the piece (p. 1137; my emphases)) has to say:

Up to the data extraction cutoff date of March 2, 2022, three serious adverse events, all in recipients of BNT162b2 as a fourth dose, were reported, none of which were related to the study vaccine (appendix 1 pp 9-11). 16 adverse events were reported after fourth-dose BNT162b2 and 18 adverse events were reported after fourth-dose mRNA-1273 (including unsolicited adverse events within 28 days, medically attended adverse events within 3 months, and all other adverse events reported up to data lock). Four adverse events of special interest were reported in the group who received three doses of BNT162b2 and one half-dose of mRNA-1273, all of which were unrelated to the study vaccine (appendix 1 pp 9–11).

Let’s be generous here, shall we? Out of 166 participants,

3 serious AEs equal 3.61% of all 83 participants experienced a serious AE as a consequence of receiving a BioNTech/Pfizer booster.

16 AEs following BioNTech/Pfizer booster administration equals a whooping 19.3% of AE rate.

The numbers of ‘regular’ AEs are even worse for the Moderna product, which clocks in at 21.7%, which ‘include[e] unsolicited adverse events within 28 days, medically attended adverse events within 3 months, and all other adverse events reported up to data lock’.

And the above is the data the Austro-Covidian National Immunisation Consortium bases its recommendations on.

Bottom Lines

If you’d thought Karl Lauterbach, Germany’s hapless crazy person who’s in the business of running peoples’ lives, would be out of touch, you’re correct.

I would wager, though, that the Austro-Covidians aren’t far behind (if they actually are)…

At this point, there’s only one question that remains, to be asked of Criminal Law experts:

When does ignorance become an aggravating factor?