![well golly gomer pyle well golly gomer pyle](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c5/0e/ca/c50ecacee273b0906682d5d5cdcaa1b4.gif)
If there is little or no B-cell recall then the vaccine is a failure as it cannot stimulate durable immunity at all. 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). 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. 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. 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 vaccinated subjects, antibody titers decreased by up to 40% each subsequent month while in convalescents they decreased by less than 5% per month.
![well golly gomer pyle well golly gomer pyle](https://i.imgflip.com/4i3afd.jpg)
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.īut 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.Īnd, as it turns out, that wasn't the only problem.
![well golly gomer pyle well golly gomer pyle](https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-EvJecwGpbeI/WiDC2J-QfjI/AAAAAAAADcw/XQEeQQCoWYsHhQA299dtJZHjvCS5XwmIACLcBGAs/s1600/QQVRnk_i6---7gZrJhpGfrfo7ac%253D.gif)
One of the most-glaring was the wildly higher antibody titers produced by them as opposed to natural infection. 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.