That study is a lame high level correlation exercise by an amateur epidemiologist. It provides at best extremely weak evidence for any relationship as I explained in my post 48168837 If you're looking for some smoking gun, this isn't it and your continued repetition of it doesn't change anything.
Here's a recent analysis carried out on influenza and non-influenza infection data collected over seven years in Canada. The analysis explicitly examines whether flu vaccine affects resistance to non-influenza viruses including corona viruses.
https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa626/5842161Abstract
Influenza vaccine effectiveness against influenza and noninfluenza respiratory viruses (NIRVs) was assessed by test-negative design using historic datasets of the community-based Canadian Sentinel Practitioner Surveillance Network, spanning 2010–2011 to 2016–2017. Vaccine significantly reduced the risk of influenza illness by >40% with no effect on coronaviruses or other NIRV risk.
What does "original antigenic sin" have to do with susceptibility to Covid-19? Your quote claims possible increased susceptibility to "future flu pandemic" and not to any corona virus. Just more distracting gish-gallop on your part which doesn't add any evidence to support your case.
Why would the "key health data authorities" do this analysis if there is no credible identified reason to examine the question? Your conspiracy theory thinking, cherry picking and misinterpretation is not a credible reason. If you or your cohort think there is a reason, why don't you develop a study and ask for the data rather than whinging and whining and shouting "big pharma conspiracy!"?
