Category Quora Answers

It’s an interesting question, because there are a lot of confounding factors that influence the data that a lot of people claim is evidence that they have “saved millions of lives”.

First it should be noted that in the original trials, the reduction of risk

[1] on a population level from the virus giving symptomatic infection from the virus using these mRNA therapeutics, was very low.

ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs:

• 1·3% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford,
• 1·2% for the Moderna–NIH,
• 1·2% for the J&J,
• 0·93% for the Gamaleya, and ;
• 0·84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines.

So for healthy people in high virus risk areas they didn’t really have any real impact.

You would think that the primary reason for receiving an intervention was to provide your body with the means of combatting the very thing you were being inoculated against. Apparently not.

This was further confirmed here:Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United StatesEur J Epidemiol. 2021 Sep 30 : 1–4. Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States S. V. Subramanian 1 Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, Cambridge, MA USA 2 Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA USA Akhil Kumar 3 Turner Fenton Secondary School, Brampton, ON Canada 1 Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, Cambridge, MA USA 2 Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA USA 3 Turner Fenton Secondary School, Brampton, ON Canada Corresponding author. Received 2021 Aug 17; Accepted 2021 Sep 9. This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic. Vaccines currently are the primary mitigation strategy to combat COVID-19 around the world.

For instance, the narrative related to the ongoing surge of new cases in the United States (US) is argued to be driven by areas with low vaccination rates [ 1 ]. A similar narrative also has been observed in countries, such as Germany and the United Kingdom [ 2 ]. At the same time, Israel that was hailed for its swift and high rates of vaccination has also seen a substantial resurgence in COVID-19 cases [ 3 ]. We investigate the relationship between the percentage of population  fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases across 68 countries and across 2947 counties in the US. Methods We used COVID-19 data provided by the Our World in Data for cross-country analysis, available as of September 3, 2021 (Supplementary Table 1) [ 4 ]. We included 68 countries that met the following criteria: had second dose vaccine data available; had COVID-19 case data available; had population data available; and the last update of data was within 3 days prior to or on September 3, 2021. For the 7 days preceding September 3, 2021 we computed the COVID-19 cases per 1 million people for each country as well as the percentage of population that is fully vaccinated. For the county-level analysis in the US, we utilized the White House COVID-19 Team data [ 5 ], available as of September 2, 2021 (Supplementary Table 2). We excluded counties that did not report fully vaccinated population percentage data yielding 2947 counties for the analysis. We computed the number and percentages of counties that experienced an increase in COVID-19 cases by levels of the percentage of people fully vaccinated in each county. The percentage increase in COVID-19 cases was calculated based on the difference in cases from the last 7 days and the 7 days preceding them. For example, Los Angeles county in California had 18,171 cases in the last 7 days (August 26 to September 1) and 31https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/

At the country-level, there appears to be no discernable relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases in the last 7 days (Fig. 1). In fact, the trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people. Notably, Israel with over 60% of their population fully vaccinated had the highest COVID-19 cases per 1 million people in the last 7 days.

Analysis showing that the more injections you get, the more instances of infection there are, opening up the population to more adverse reactions from the virus (and the vaccine).

Did the above research hold true? Yes, as confirmed by the Cleveland Clinic study:Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Bivalent Vaccine

Now we have the “so what” part of this. If the injections were benign and didn’t do anything anyway but lower risk by less than 1%, then how is it that more people get Covid the more jabs they have? Maybe there is another mechanism at work?Innate immune suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs – PubMedThe mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were brought to market in response to the public health crises of Covid-19. The utilization of mRNA vaccines in the context of infectious disease has no precedent. The many alterations in the vaccine mRNA hide the mRNA from cellular defenses and promote a longer biologic …https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35436552/

Immune suppression. Not very good really. The creation of a dysfunctional immune response. Interferon is quite a key pathway to be carelessly and callously tampered with. It has an integral part keeping the response to outside invaders in check (not to mention cancer causing pathways).Extended SARS-CoV-2 RBD booster vaccination induces humoral and cellular immune tolerance in mice The repetitive applications of vaccine boosters have been brought up in face of continuous emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants with neutralization escape…https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004222017515

I bet you never heard this one above on the mainstream?

Our findings demonstrate potential risks with the continuous use of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine boosters, providing immediate implications [emphasis added] for the global COVID-19 vaccination enhancement strategies.

We found that the protective effects from the humoral immunity and cellular immunity established by the conventional immunization were both profoundly impaired during the extended vaccination course.

There’s more though: Class switch towards non-inflammatory, spike-specific IgG4 antibodies after repeated SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinationhttps://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.ade2798mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 induce comparably low long-term IgG Fc galactosylation and sialylation levels but increasing long-term IgG4 responses compared to an adenovirus-based vaccine

The new types of mRNA-containing lipid nanoparticle vaccines BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 and the adenovirus-based vaccine AZD1222 were developed against SARS-CoV-2 and code for its spike (S) protein. Several studies have investigated short-term antibody (Ab) responses after vaccination. However, the impact of these new vaccine formats with unclear effects on the long-term Ab response – including isotype, subclass, and their type of Fc glycosylation – is less explored. Here, we analyzed anti-S Ab responses in blood serum and the saliva of SARS-CoV-2 naïve and non-hospitalized pre-infected subjects upon two vaccinations with different mRNA- and adenovirus-based vaccine combinations up to day 270. We show that the initially high mRNA vaccine-induced blood and salivary anti-S IgG levels, particularly IgG1, markedly decrease over time and approach the lower levels induced with the adenovirus-based vaccine. All three vaccines induced, contrary to the short-term anti-S IgG1 response with high sialylation and galactosylation levels, a long-term anti-S IgG1 response that was characterized by low sialylation and galactosylation with the latter being even below the corresponding total IgG1 galactosylation level. Instead, the mRNA, but not the adenovirus-based vaccines induced long-term IgG4 responses – the IgG subclass with inhibitory effector functions. Furthermore, salivary anti-S IgA levels were lower and decreased faster in naïve as compared to pre-infected vaccinees. Predictively, age correlated with lower long-term anti-S IgG titers for the mRNA vaccines. Furthermore, higher total IgG1 galactosylation, sialylation, and bisection levels correlated with higher long-term anti-S IgG1 sialylation, galactosylation, and bisection levels, respectively, for all vaccine combinations. In summary, the study suggests a comparable “adjuvant” potential of the newly developed vaccines on the anti-S IgG Fc glycosylation, as reflected in relatively low long-term anti-S IgG1 galactosylation levels generated by the long-lived plasma cell pool, whose induction might be driven by a recently described TH1-driven B cell response for all three vaccines. Instead, repeated immunization of naïve individuals with the mRNA vaccines increased the proportion of the IgG4 subclass over time which might influence the long-term Ab effector functions. Taken together, these data shed light on these novel vaccine formats and might have potential implications for their long-term efficacy.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2022.1020844/full

IgG4 Antibodies Induced by mRNA Vaccines Generate Immune Tolerance to SARS-CoV-2’spike Protein by Suppressing the Immune SystemDue to the health crisis caused by SARS-CoV-2, the creation of a new vaccine platform based on mRNA was implemented. https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202303.0441/v1

Now we have a class switch in antibodies to the more tolerant IgG4, so instead of clearing the virus, the body simply says “Meh, that Covid again? Ignore.” And symptoms get suppressed, like they do during hay fever season.

The damage a constant replicating virus can do unleashed on the system is not something many people would want.

Hence why we see these types of headlines:

Source

And we know that the health authorities have been “fiddling” with the data:

Statistical and Numerical Errors Made by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention During the COVID-19 Pandemic https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4381627

Data reporting flaw in plain sight distorting COVID-19 mortality statistics https://www.academia.edu/85597731/Data_reporting_flaw_in_plain_sight_distorting_COVID_19_mortality_statistics

Increasing SARS-CoV2 cases, hospitalizations and deaths among the vaccinated elderly populations during the Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant surge in UK https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.06.28.22276926v3

Authors found:

The vaccine effectiveness (VE) for the third dose was in negative since December 20, 2021, with a significantly increased proportion of SARS-CoV2 cases hospitalizations and deaths among the vaccinated; and a decreased proportion of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths among the unvaccinated. The pre-existing conditions were present in 95.6% of all COVID-19 deaths and we also observed various ethnic, deprivation score and vaccination rate disparities that can adversely affect hospitalization and deaths among the compared groups based on the vaccination status.

CONCLUSIONS There is no discernable optimal vaccine effectiveness among ≥18 years of age, vaccinated third dose population since December 20, 2021 during the beginning of the Omicron variant surge. Pre-existing conditions, ethnicity, deprivation score, and vaccination rate disparities data need to be adjusted by the development of validated models for evaluating VE for hospitalizations and deaths. The increased proportion of cases with significantly increased risk of hospitalizations and deaths among the elderly population during the Omicron variant surge underscores the need to prevent infections in the elderly irrespective of vaccination status with uniform screening protocols and protective measures.

Official mortality data for England suggest systematic miscategorisation of vaccine status and uncertain effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccination https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357778435_Official_mortality_data_for_England_suggest_systematic_miscategorisation_of_vaccine_status_and_uncertain_effectiveness_of_Covid-19_vaccination

Official mortality data for England reveal systematic undercounting of deaths occurring within first two weeks of Covid-19 vaccination https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358979921_Official_mortality_data_for_England_reveal_systematic_undercounting_of_deaths_occurring_within_first_two_weeks_of_Covid-19_vaccination

Discrepancies and inconsistencies in UK Government datasets compromise accuracy of mortality rate comparisons between vaccinated and unvaccinated https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355437113_Discrepancies_and_inconsistencies_in_UK_Government_datasets_compromise_accuracy_of_mortality_rate_comparisons_between_vaccinated_and_unvaccinated

“But what about that Lancet study that said millions of lives had been saved?” I hear you cry.

A computational model based on no real patients (just hypothetical, homogenous patient cohorts) and a case of “if the efficacy was this figure, the virus had a fatality rate of that figure, and the vaccines did what they were supposed to do, then we predict they would save this many people”. Not based on real world data, sorry.

“But it trains your immune system to make antibodies against the spike protein”

There you’re right. Presumably, if you’re lucky enough to get a shot that has greater than 50% viable and intact lipid nanoparticles without truncated (damaged) mRNA in then, following transfection, the spikes are produced by your own cells and your body makes an over expression of spike and Abs before eventual cellular destruction.

There’s a snag though.

The repeated injecting didn’t take into account the imprinting effect of constant injection with the instruction for the Wuhan 1 spike (that hasn’t existed since 2020), whilst ignoring historical studies showing that an RBD vaccine cannot neutralise the virus AND as a result of that immune pressure, the variants emerge.

Effects of Human Anti-Spike Protein Receptor Binding Domain Antibodies on Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Neutralization Escape and Fitnesshttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4248992/

We conclude that using either single nAbs or dual nAb combinations to target a SARS-CoV RBD epitope that shows plasticity may have limitations for preventing neutralization escape during in vivo immunotherapy.

We found that neither single nAbs nor two nAbs in combination blocked escape. Our results suggest that targeting conserved regions with less plasticity and more structural constraint rather than the SARS-CoV RBD-like region(s) should have broader utility for antibody-based immunotherapy.

And the body has learnt this so well, that now the bivalent booster efficacy is showing the issues. As shown here:

Immunogenicity of BA.5 Bivalent mRNA Vaccine Boostershttps://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2213948

Our data indicate that both monovalent and bivalent mRNA boosters markedly increased antibody responses but did not substantially augment T-cell responses. Neutralizing antibody titers against the ancestral strain of SARS-CoV-2 were higher than titers against BA.5 after both monovalent and bivalent boosting. The median BA.5 neutralizing antibody titer was similar after monovalent and bivalent mRNA boosting, with a modest trend favoring the bivalent booster by a factor of 1.3. It is possible that larger studies may show a greater between-group difference, but any such comparative studies between monovalent and bivalent mRNA boosters would need to enroll the two cohorts within the same time frame and after the BA.5 surge, because negative results on nucleocapsid serologic analysis would not exclude all infected participants. These data are consistent with the modest benefits observed with a BA.1-containing bivalent mRNA booster.4Our findings suggest that immune imprinting by previous antigenic exposure5

may pose a greater challenge than is currently appreciated for inducing robust immunity against SARS-CoV-2 variants.

And here:

Antibody Response to Omicron BA.4–BA.5 Bivalent Booster https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2213907

Boosting with new bivalent mRNA vaccines targeting both the BA.4–BA.5 variant and the D614G strain did not elicit a discernibly superior virus-neutralizing peak antibody response as compared with boosting with the original monovalent vaccines. [..] These findings may be indicative of immunologic imprinting,5

although follow-up studies are needed to determine whether antibody responses will deviate over time,including after the administration of a second bivalent booster.

Even here:

Immunogenicity of the BA.1 and BA.4/BA.5 SARS-CoV-2 Bivalent Boosts: Preliminary Results from the COVAIL Randomized Clinical Trial Immunogenicity of the BA.1 and BA.4/BA.5 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Bivalent Boosts: Preliminary Results From the COVAIL Randomized Clinical Trial

Titers against BQ.1.1 and XBB.1 were 8-22 times and 13-35 times lower than against BA.1 and D614G, respectively, with the Wildtype/Omicron BA.1 vaccine. Titers against BQ.1.1 and XBB.1 were 4-12 times and 8-22 times lower than against BA.4/BA.5 and D614G, respectively, with the Wildtype/Omicron BA.4/BA.5 vaccine.However, there was increasing neutralization escape with the late 2022 Omicron subvariants (BQ.1.1 and XBB.1). This escape is similar between the two bivalent vaccines as demonstrated by numerically similar GMTs with overlapping confidence intervals, even though BA.1 and BA.4/BA.5 spike sequences are known to have different mutations in the receptor binding domain.7 Our findings highlight ongoing concern that the breadth of antibody response from current updated vaccines is not optimal for the pace of virus evolution.

Are they benign? Not really. Clearly there has been individuals that have been seriously damaged and disabled, even died from these therapeutics. AstraZeneca recipients and clotting, specifically. But the mRNA also have issues once in the circulatory system, heading for the heart or brain.

Did they save lives? In the beginning, when the WH1 strain was still circulating? Possibly. But now, the immune escape across variants is clear.

All cause mortality has not been reduced and is, in fact, higher now than in 2019. Year on year it’s been going up, not because of the virus either. Is it causal? No government wants to look properly but there have been assessments;

Causal effect of covid vaccination on mortality in Europehttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/368777703_Causal_effect_of_covid_vaccination_on_mortality_in_Europe

Is there a Link between the 2021 COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake in Europe and 2022 Excess All-Cause Mortality? Is there a Link between the 2021 COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake in Europe and 2022 Excess All-Cause Mortality?

COVID-19 and All-Cause Mortality Data by Age Group Reveals Risk of COVID Vaccine-Induced Fatality is Equal to or Greater than the Risk of a COVID death for all Age Groups Under 80 Years Old as of 6 February 2022 COVID-19 and All-Cause Mortality Data by Age Group Reveals Risk of COVID Vaccine-Induced Fatality is Equal to or Greater than the Risk of a COVID death for all Age Groups Under 80 Years Old as of 6 February 2022, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2202.0084

Effect of Age, Sex, and COVID-19 Vaccination History on All-Cause Mortality: Unexpected Outcomes in a Complex Biological and Social System Effect of Age, Sex, and COVID-19 Vaccination History on All-Cause Mortality: Unexpected Outcomes in a Complex Biological and Social System

US COVID-19 Vaccines Proven to Cause More Harm than Good Based on Pivotal Clinical Trial Data Analyzed Using the Proper Scientific Endpoint, “All Cause Severe Morbidity” https://www.scivisionpub.com/pdfs/us-covid19-vaccines-proven-to-cause-more-harm-than-good-based-on-pivotal-clinical-trial-data-analyzed-using-the-proper-scientific–1811.pdf

COVID vaccination and age-stratified all-cause mortality risk https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355581860_COVID_vaccination_and_age-stratified_all-cause_mortality_risk

Covid-19 vaccinations and all-cause mortality -a long-term differential analysis among municipalities https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361818561_Covid-19_vaccinations_and_all-cause_mortality_-a_long-term_differential_analysis_among_municipalities

Do you think that those who found out information on the issues of the mRNA therapeutics in the beginning would be keen to do go out and get the shots now?

Considering the information that is coming out at a regular pace about the issues they have caused / still cause, considering the resignations and back-tracking of health officials as the narrative falls apart, considering the leaders of the world and their aides now gaslighting people with the “we never forced anyone to get it” lie, and the now begun law suits for vaccine injured people, it would be somewhat of an interesting person to now succumb to the propaganda and say, “What the hell, I might as well get the injections now and forget everything I know”.

All the catastrophising by the media about the so-called lethality of the virus, applied to all age groups, was nothing but a fraction of the truth to mislead the public opinion, paid for by advertising revenue and financial interests, to get the people to ignore their common sense and do what the “men and women in white coats” said.

It was the biggest Asch Conformity Experiment and Milgram Experiment

combined of all time!

Many don’t want to realise they themselves have been psychologically manipulated to accept an intervention that, at best (according to their own ARR results), did nothing, but at worst, injured people to the point of loss of life at the extreme or severe debilitating effects. The manufacturers who have infiltrated and coerced the regulatory authorities into accepting anything they said, provided a repeatedly failed platform against a rapidly mutating virus to sweep up the financial benefits and any law suit penalties will be mere drops in the ocean to them. The lives they damaged, and of those around them, will be scarred, and to the Big Pharma, that was just business.

No one who has refused up until now (2023) will be very keen to participate, but they’ll be far better armed to distinguish lies and fiction now than the majority of the population.

As I’m sure you’re aware by now, the spike protein producing therapeutic injections, though we were all told by many high level leaders that it would halt Covid in its tracks, did nothing of the kind. Even the moving goalpost statements that it would first protect from infection and transmission, then only infection, then severe infection, then hospitalisation and death, were a gross overestimation of their capabilities.

A lot of pro-advocates repeatedly state “they were never meant to prevent infection, just to give your immune system a ‘look’ at the virus to help it combat it” but even that has fallen by the wayside. Why? Immunological Imprinting. By the way, when you hear that line, know that there is no mechanism in nature that allows infection of a pathogen but miraculously protects you from the effects of it once it is infecting you. The only thing that is happening is the toleration of the virus.

In the beginning, when the orignal WH1 (Wuhan) strain was circulating (though it never made it out of Asia), people might have gained some benefit from the spike they were manufacturing themselves, but due to the nature of the viral glycoprotein and the plasticity (mutational) capacity, the spike evolved to evade the antibodies created

[1]. Successive injections, showing the body the same spike configuration when the wild virus had already mutated, created an immune selection pressure to allow further escape from any cross neutralising antibodies

[2]. Hence why, as the variants advanced, the transmissibility was improved and the virulence lessened. People’s immune responses only began creating antibodies in greater titres to the original strain that went extinct in 2020, not the variants.

Repeated boosting then lowers the humoral response into toleration mode, as shown here:Extended SARS-CoV-2 RBD booster vaccination induces humoral and cellular immune tolerance in miceThe repetitive applications of vaccine boosters have been brought up in face of continuous emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants with neutralization escape…https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004222017515

And in these studies showing the switch to IgG4 class which has the effect of only suppressing symptoms, not clearing the virus upon rechallenge:

Class switch towards non-inflammatory IgG isotypes after repeated SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination Class switch towards non-inflammatory IgG isotypes after repeated SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination Published https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.ade2798

mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 induce comparably low long-term IgG Fc galactosylation and sialylation levels but increasing long-term IgG4 responses compared to an adenovirus-based vaccine mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 induce comparably low long-term IgG Fc galactosylation and sialylation levels but increasing long-term IgG4 responses compared to an adenovirus-based vaccine

IgG4 Antibodies Induced by mRNA Vaccines Generate Immune Tolerance to SARS-CoV-2’spike Protein by Suppressing the Immune System IgG4 Antibodies Induced by mRNA Vaccines Generate Immune Tolerance to SARS-CoV-2’spike Protein by Suppressing the Immune System

You can read more about this here:Deep immunological imprinting due to the ancestral spike in the current bivalent COVID-19 vaccine

With the aim of broadening immune responses against the evolving SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants, bivalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccines that encode the ancestral and Omicron BA.5 spike proteins have been authorized for clinical use, supplanting the original monovalent counterpart in numerous countries. However, recent studies have demonstrated that administering either a monovalent or bivalent vaccine as a fourth vaccine dose results in similar neutralizing antibody titers against the latest Omicron subvariants, raising the possibility of immunological imprinting. Utilizing binding immunoassays, pseudotyped virus neutralization assays, and antigenic mapping, we investigated antibody responses from 72 participants who received three monovalent mRNA vaccine doses followed by either a bivalent or monovalent booster, or who experienced breakthrough infections with the BA.5 or BQ subvariant after vaccinations with an original monovalent vaccine. Compared to a monovalent booster, the bivalent booster did not yield noticeably higher binding titers to D614G, BA.5, and BQ.1.1 spike proteins, nor higher virus-neutralizing titers against SARS-CoV-2 variants including the predominant XBB.1.5 and the emergent XBB.1.16. However, sera from breakthrough infection cohorts neutralized Omicron subvariants significantly better. Multiple analyses of these results, including antigenic mapping, made clear that inclusion of the ancestral spike prevents the broadening of antibodies to the BA.5 component in the bivalent vaccine, thereby defeating its intended goal. Our findings suggest that the ancestral spike in the current bivalent COVID-19 vaccine is the cause of deep immunological imprinting. Its removal from future vaccine compositions is therefore strongly recommended. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors declare potential conflicts of interest as follows: D.D.H. is a co-founder of TaiMed Biologics and RenBio, as well as a board director for Vicarious Surgical; he also serves as a consultant to WuXi Biologics, Brii Biosciences, and Veru; and he receives research support from Regeneron. A.G. served on a scientific advisory board for Janssen Pharmaceuticals. The remaining authors declare no competing interests. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.05.03.539268v1

The boosters have been observed to generate stronger responses to the original strain rather than the circulating variants (though the variants in the booster were obselete by the time they hit the market):

Immunogenicity of BA.5 Bivalent mRNA Vaccine Boostershttps://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2213948

Authors note:

Our data indicate that both monovalent and bivalent mRNA boosters markedly increased antibody responses but did not substantially augment T-cell responses. Neutralizing antibody titers against the ancestral strain of SARS-CoV-2 were higher than titers against BA.5 after both monovalent and bivalent boosting. The median BA.5 neutralizing antibody titer was similar after monovalent and bivalent mRNA boosting, with a modest trend favoring the bivalent booster by a factor of 1.3. It is possible that larger studies may show a greater between-group difference, but any such comparative studies between monovalent and bivalent mRNA boosters would need to enroll the two cohorts within the same time frame and after the BA.5 surge, because negative results on nucleocapsid serologic analysis would not exclude all infected participants. These data are consistent with the modest benefits observed with a BA.1-containing bivalent mRNA booster.4 Our findings suggest that immune imprinting by previous antigenic exposure5 may pose a greater challenge than is currently appreciated for inducing robust immunity against SARS-CoV-2 variants.

And here:

Antibody responses to Omicron BA.4/BA.5 bivalent mRNA vaccine booster shot Antibody responses to Omicron BA.4/BA.5 bivalent mRNA vaccine booster shot

Boosting with a new bivalent mRNA vaccine targeting both BA.4/BA.5 and an ancestral SARS-CoV-2 strain did not elicit a discernibly superior virus-neutralizing antibody responses compared boosting with an original monovalent vaccine. These findings may be indicative of immunological imprinting5, although follow-up studies are needed to determine if the antibody responses will deviate in time, including the impact of a second bivalent booster.

This one might interest you as well:

Immunogenicity of the BA.1 and BA.4/BA.5 SARS-CoV-2 Bivalent Boosts: Preliminary Results from the COVAIL Randomized Clinical Trial Immunogenicity of the BA.1 and BA.4/BA.5 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Bivalent Boosts: Preliminary Results From the COVAIL Randomized Clinical Trial

Titers against BQ.1.1 and XBB.1 were 8-22 times and 13-35 times lower than against BA.1 and D614G, respectively, with the Wildtype/Omicron BA.1 vaccine. Titers against BQ.1.1 and XBB.1 were 4-12 times and 8-22 times lower than against BA.4/BA.5 and D614G, respectively, with the Wildtype/Omicron BA.4/BA.5 vaccine. However, there was increasing neutralization escape with the late 2022 Omicron subvariants (BQ.1.1 and XBB.1). This escape is similar between the two bivalent vaccines as demonstrated by numerically similar GMTs with overlapping confidence intervals, even though BA.1 and BA.4/BA.5 spike sequences are known to have different mutations in the receptor binding domain.7 Our findings highlight ongoing concern that the breadth of antibody response from current updated vaccines is not optimal for the pace of virus evolution.

The recently published Cleveland Clinic study …Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Bivalent VaccineAmong 51017 working-aged Cleveland Clinic employees, the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine was 29% effective in preventing infection while the BA.4/5 lineages were domihttps://academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ofid/ofad209/7131292?login=false

… shows this repeated infection scenario.

So is it any wonder why the Icelandic study; Rate of SARS-CoV-2 Reinfection During an Omicron Wave in Iceland; showed a higher probability of reinfection the more jabs received?

In this population-based cohort study, a substantial proportion of persons experienced SARS-CoV-2 reinfection during the first 74 days of the Omicron wave in Iceland, with rates as high 15.1% among those aged 18 to 29 years. Longer time from initial infection was associated with a higher probability of reinfection, although the difference was smaller than expected. Surprisingly, 2 or more doses of vaccine were associated with a slightly higher probability of reinfection compared with 1 dose or less.’

Hope that answers your question. Feel free to follow our Space to keep up to date with pandemic news.

[1]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4248992/

[2]

Imprinted SARS-CoV-2 humoral immunity induces convergent Omicron RBD evolution – Nature