By Caitlin Rothermel
It’s time to talk about COVID booster shots and the implications of encouraging their use. Before I go there, it’s important to first summarize some vaccination policy changes that have occurred at the federal and state level.
On October 6, 2025, the CDC officially voted to shift COVID-19 vaccination guidance for all eligible U.S. residents to shared or individually based decision-making, rather than as a universal recommendation.
In medical-speak, shared decision-making, or SDM, refers to when patients and clinicians weigh options together. Specific to vaccine policy, it means the vaccine may not be regularly recommended, but can still be offered when both agree it makes sense. So, SDM shifts authority away from the federal level (“Everyone should do this …”), directly to doctors and patients talking (“What is best for me?”).
If this seems sound to you, you’re not alone. An editorial in The Boston Globe, “Actually, the CDC’s New Vaccine Recommendations are Reasonable,” called the updated guidance “unremarkable” and noted that these new COVID vaccination recommendations are “in line with what is already done in other high-income countries.”
Fundamentally, the primary concern presented by this new guidance was that removing the universal recommendation for these vaccines could lead to denied insurance coverage.
In response, Washington, Oregon, and California and Hawaii have formed the West Coast Health Alliance (WCHA) and have set their own immunization policies for COVID and other respiratory infections, effectively reinstating prior vaccination guidance under state authority rather than deferring to the CDC.
A joint governors’ statement explains the WCHA’s rationale: “The CDC has become a political tool that increasingly peddles ideology instead of science, ideology that will lead to severe health consequences. [Washington, etc.] will not allow the people of our states to be put at risk.”
Next – and here begins the booster part of this story – for no good reason whatsoever, a regional and local narrative was rolled out, focused on re-vaccination. Our prior high uptake was praised, while our lackluster ongoing booster use was chided (as of this writing, only 3.1% in the state have received this season’s dose).
Because I am a fan of clarity, it was … vexing … to me to see media stories promoting booster injections by repurposing the same under-supported and overplayed phrases, like “best available science,” “well-tested,” and “safe and effective.”
As discussed previously by The Loop (and many others), the research and testing behind the development of the mRNA injections was far from comprehensive, and myocarditis – an inflammation of the heart muscle that damages cellular and cardiovascular function – was the first-proven, but by no means only, serious harm associated with the injections.
The language used by the media to encourage boosters would you make think there had been no changes to the “best available science.” But in fact, published research now shows clear problems, in particular with repeat injections. It can be hard to find this story covered in the media, but accessible and reputable information, looking at large groups of people studied over time, is now available.
Let’s start with the Cleveland Clinic. A globally recognized academic health system, the Cleveland Clinic conducted a retrospective cohort study from 2022-2023 to compare their employees’ time to COVID infection based on whether or not they ever received the COVID vaccination (yes/no) and based on the number of injections received (0, 1, 2, 3, and 4+).
More than 50,000 staff were followed for about 16 months; during this time, about 4,400 developed COVID. In the results, two things stood out: Initially, the vaccinated had low COVID rates, as did the unvaccinated. The low rates in the vaccinated group only lasted for as long as the virus strains targeted by the vaccine remained the primary circulating form of the virus. As the next two COVID strains became predominant, any observed protective effect decreased and was then lost altogether.
Importantly, patients who received boosters experienced greater infection risk, in a clear and progressive pattern. According to study authors: “The higher the number of vaccines previously received, the higher the risk of contracting COVID-19.”
Other research has confirmed that the effectiveness of the COVID injections decreases over time. Measured as infections, emergency visits, and hospitalizations, decreased effectiveness becomes apparent about 3 months after administration, requiring patients to get another injection to “reawaken” their spike protein antibody levels.
A relationship between COVID vaccines and cancer risk is also coming into focus. Last month, another very large study – evaluating the full South Korean population of 8.4 million-plus people enrolled in a National Health Insurance database – looked at one-year overall cancer rates for people who received the COVID vaccinations and those who did not. People with vaccinations had an increased risk of multiple cancer types – between 20% and 68% higher. Specific to patients who received the mRNA vaccines, breast, colon, lung and thyroid cancer rates were elevated. Specific to patients who received booster doses, gastric and pancreatic cancers were elevated.
Why is all this happening? A good place to start is the immune system, and an antibody known as immunoglobulin G4 – or IgG4 – holds at least part of the answer. The immunoglobulins, or Ig’s, are circulating antibodies that protect the body from infection. There are five Ig types, with IgG being the most common, and there are four IgG subclasses, with IgG4 being the least common.
While IgG’s 1 to 3 focus on tasks like activating inflammation and recruiting immune cells to help the system attack and clear infections, IgG4 is different. Its role is to ignore immune triggers that would normally bring on a strong response – it dampens inflammation.
To illustrate how this can work positively: With allergy desensitization treatment, patients are gradually exposed to specific triggering antigens, leading to a reduced allergic response and increased IgG4 levels. At the other end of the spectrum, patients with IgG4 related-disease experience a breakdown in immune balance, causing inflammation and organ damage.
The first round of COVID mRNA vaccinations primarily trigger an IgG1 and 3 response, but repeated injections can lead to a bodily “switch” to an IgG4-dominant profile. By promoting Ig profile-switching, boosters “train” the body to ignore a replicating virus. Over time, this can weaken the body’s ability to fight infections, and may increase the risk of recurring or prolonged infection. When considered alongside other immune changes found to be triggered by COVID vaccinations, there are downstream implications for cancer and autoimmune disease.
As always, you can find links to source information used in this article in the online version.
