When shall we talk about the antibodies and the fact that - in each age group - there were only 12 people in the treatment group, and 3 people in the placebo group whose antibodies were measured?

You knew that though, right?

And you also knew that when they posted the antibody levels in the VRBPAC submission to the FDA, they were on a log scale. You knew that, right?

Here's the data recalculated from the ADVA file in the ICAN - Informed Consent Action Network FOI #pfizerdocuments

On the left is a linear scale, right is log

ICAN - Informed Consent Action Network But here's the funny thing. From the same VRBPAC submission, they said that once you passed 14 days from the first dose, that is when you got this miraculous 95% protection.

Yeah but that wasn't when the antibodies were high.

In fact, the antibodies at 21 days were only this high - on a linear scale - and similar to the antibody level at 6 months.

So here are 2 really important questions:
1⃣ If the antibodies are the only thing that mattered (and the only thing that are relied upon in childrens' trials) why did anybody need a second dose, when all the 'benefit' was seen before 21 days
and...

....
2⃣ why this constant need for boosters if the antibody levels between day 21 and 6 months are far in excess of those required for the 'protection' seen after 12 days.

Of course, it's possible that the 'protection' wasn't real...

... but of course that would have meant that the most effective fraud ever seen in a clinical trial had been committed and nobody noticed.

And that would be some 'conspiracy theory nonsense' obviously.

So that's crazy.
Stupid mice and their ideas.
twitter.com/Jikkyleaks/sta…

Src:
R-code to generate the plots
files.catbox.moe/sxc5cd.R

VRBPAC submission document (Pflzer)
fda.gov/advisory-commi…

ADVA data file (XPT format)
icandecide.org/wp-content/upl…

Oh, and of course you don't have to take my word for it.

The UK Health Security Agency (ex PHE_UK) pointed out the same.
It's just that one dose was no good for the narrative that was required.

Was it?
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…