A recent study from Israel has been covered by mainstream media which claims that a recent coven variant from South Africa affects the vaccinated more than the unvaccinated. The study is not yet been peer-reviewed. But what does it claim?
Here, we performed a case-control study that examined whether BNT162b2 vaccinees with documented SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to become infected with B.1.1.7 or B.1.351 compared with unvaccinated individuals. Vaccinees infected at least a week after the second dose were disproportionally infected with B.1.351 (odds ratio of 8:1). Those infected between two weeks after the first dose and one week after the second dose, were disproportionally infected by B.1.1.7 (odds ratio of 26:10),
As of the study summary specifically states. It looks like those who receive a vaccine, which is an experimental injection, are being infected with a new covid strain at a higher rate than those who are not vaccinated
A team from Tel Aviv University and Clalit Health Services found that the prevalence of the South Africa variant among patients who received both doses of the vaccine was around eight times higher than those unvaccinated – 5.4% versus 0.7%.
One of the newspapers or news sites to cover this was the Washington Examiner. The screenshot above is from the original publication (from archive) Which states the title "Study finds COVID variant affects vaccinated individuals more than unvaccinated". It makes it pretty clear that those who receive the experimental induction are more affected by a specific Covid variant.
But when you go look at the article now it has a completely different title: "South African COVID variant might evade protection from vaccine, study finds"
You'll note that there is only publication date, and no mention of an update or edit to the title. This is how many of the mainstream news organizations rewrite the content in their articles or the headlines themselves. They first stated one thing, but it was deemed not acceptable to say it in a certain way, so then they change what was previously said.
Why is that? Was it because something was untrue? No, just because what was stated was a truth they didn't want people to easily come to the conclusion of by simply reading the title that stated the conclusion. So instead they word it differently. Instead of the Covid variant affecting the vaccinated more easily, now becomes about how the Covid variant simply evades protection from the vaccine.
Not that the revised title is untrue either. But it the first title made the point that being vaccinated put you more at risk of catching what they claim is a super deadly virus. So if you read that conclusion and thought about, you might come to your own conclusion that being unvaccinated offers you better protection.
"We found a disproportionately higher rate of the South African variant among people vaccinated with a second dose, compared to the unvaccinated group," said Adi Stern of Tel Aviv University. "This means that the South African variant is able, to some extent, to break through the vaccine’s protection."
This effect could be related to ADE, antibody dependent enhancement. This is where after being vaccinated against something, when coming into contact with that thing in the environment from being exposed to it, you end up getting more of a viral infection and even more sick than if you hadn't been vaccinated. This is what happened in the past with previous vaccines that attempted to treat respiratory viruses.
What's interesting about the coverage of the study, is that the Washington examine her article referenced the Fox news article when it referred to the study, and the Fox news article when referencing the study merely pointed to the category for science on its website. I had to go find the study myself, which is referenced at the beginning of this post.
Why can't they actually link to it themselves? They don't want people to go look at the source material. You have to just trust what their telling you.