By Karl Denninger, The Market Ticker
If you recall early on before the jabs were “released” under EUA I pointed out that some of the early study work had odd results that I could not reasonably explain a purpose to, and they bothered me a lot.
One of the most-glaring was the wildly higher antibody titers produced by them as opposed to natural infection. I mused at the time that this could easily be explained by the truncation (or simply ignorance of) the usual dose-ranging studies that are done on all drugs; those require time, of course, and when you’re after Warp Speed time is something you don’t have.
But now it appears that Pfizer may have known there was a problem — they may not have known how serious it was, but they may well have known it existed and may have deliberately set the dosing to try to hide it.
In vaccinated subjects, antibody titers decreased by up to 40% each subsequent month while in convalescents they decreased by less than 5% per month. Six months after BNT162b2 vaccination 16.1% subjects had antibody levels below the seropositivity threshold of <50 AU/mL, while only 10.8% of convalescent patients were below <50 AU/mL threshold after 9 months from SARS-CoV-2 infection.
In other words the dosing they used, and the original titers, concealed the decay below effective levels which was not being tested for but would have shown up in infections among vaccinated people had the original level been lower.
That’s bad; the question now becomes did Pfizer know this and do it deliberately, and if not, what is the logical explanation for the dosing used? Why not set dosing roughly identical to natural infection? Simple: If they did that before the four months of the study ran a crap-ton of people would have gotten infected since the antibody titer would have worn off.
It gets worse:
In our study, we show that following vaccination, the levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies decrease rapidly, indicating that BMPCs may not be created adequately and therefore anti-SARS-CoV-2 humoral immunity might be transient (Ibarrondo et al., 2020; Seow et al., 2020).
If there is little or no B-cell recall then the vaccine is a failure as it cannot stimulate durable immunity at all. That is, the jabs are basically the same (via a different mechanism) to receiving monoclonal antibodies if you get infected; yes, you have an antibody titer but the jabs fail to train your immune system to recognize the infection in the future. As that titer wanes the protection becomes increasingly worthless and, since we know mutational binding changes are occurring the potential for vaccine-caused harm by potentiating infections remains a distinct possibility as that occurs.
In addition, and perhaps most-damning of all, we also know that the vaccines have a very high significant adverse event rate — much, much higher than any other commonly-used vaccine (such as MMR, varicella or the flu shot.) The really awful part of this is that most of the serious adverse events happened after the second jab, not the first one, implying that there is an accelerating risk with each successive injection. Whether that accelerating risk “bleeds off” over the next six months or so is a complete unknown since it was never tested for, but if it does not then attempting to buy successive six month periods of protection will, inevitably in everyone, cross over into being more likely to harm you than the virus itself and might even cross over to the point of inevitable harm or death if repeated enough times.
Any of this, standing alone, if identified before release would have almost-certainly caused these jabs to be scrapped. But that’s not what happened and now we have the FDA that has actually passed on “licensing” the very same one that is the subject of this study.
Folks, I believe in vaccination on a general basis. I never believe in truncating the scientific work necessary to prove that something is both safe and effective when you cannot take it back, as is the case here. We have shoved needles in 200 million American arms and countless more throughout the world without having that evidence and now, as this study demonstrates, the dosing may have been set where it was on purpose to conceal what the manufacturers knew was declining effectiveness and a likely failure of the original immune stimulation to produce a response that had the capacity to be durable.
Never mind the safety issues raised by repeated “boosters” when we already know the risks of serious adverse events are potentially compounding rather than one-shot or linear risks.
This demands immediate investigation and, if it is found that the dosing was set intentionally with knowledge of the decay dynamics everyone involved in that and its concealment had better hang for it — for starters. That is not a mistake, it is active fraud.
In addition figuring out how we back out of what is increasingly looking to be a nightmare scenario on our doorstep had better be determined — and fast.
This much is certain: Given the data on the table at this point in time no part of the “answer” can be more shots in arms.
No matter what you believe about “Warp Speed” I will say this again: You better figure out how to deal with an infection when, not if, you get it, because on this data you are going to get Covid-19 if you have not already had it. Chicken soup is not the correct answer. If you rely on said chicken soup you may well wind up flat on your back with a tube down your throat as you gasp your last.