Oh, nice - I'll have to look at that. The magic confidence intervals fall apart in the earlier version because the vaccinated are their own control group - there's only a handful of unvaccinated to compare with by the time other vaccinated early adopters are at day 16. I'll see what the new update finds. My hunch is that the "boosters" behave predictably - another ~4 months of infection efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 - but with rrrrreally knocked-out general cellular immunity against other viruses / cancers.
Ah yes the suppressed immune system effect (is it CD8?) that has to be ignored when accepting the mantra of "vaccines are safe and effective!"
Like "lock downs are effective" if you ignore excess mortality, economic recession, crippling inflation, erosion of political, police and medical trust, social friction, ruined childhoods, no reduced infections signal, closed businesses, government overreach, etc, etc.
CD8 / Killer T Cells, yes. Nathan Thompson found a clear suppression / exhaustion effect in his patient - https://rumble.com/vnaocj-immune-system-lab-results-after-1st-and-2nd-jab.html - but it has to be remembered that circulatory t cells are not the whole population. There are resident, adaptive killer t cells throughout mucosal tissue (in addition to innate Natural Killer Cells). And the suppression after two doses might be less aberrant than we think (maybe it is a common occurrence after infection? seems unlikely but you never know). And, it could be that the observed suppression is actually a reflection of a carcinogenic effect from the Covid vaccines, as T cells get used up battling carcinogenic tissues - it is the effect of cancers, rather than the cause. Even so, triple-dosing in 6 months has to be totally off the rails of normal knock-out / recovery cycles.
It seems unlikely so many people would collect data this significant so poorly, purely by incompetence. It seems more likely they're purposely trying to obscure the truth.
Who knows. Of course, so much of the legwork is already done by the failure to design a monitoring system to begin with. Even in the Pfizer/BioNTech trial - You'd think that "directly measuring clinical effects at all" just couldn't fit in the budget.
Budget hasn't been a problem lately. Couple years ago most folks had never heard of trillion. They have the means, but lack the will. Competent analysts' acquiescence to government control is the same cult behavior as we've seen in every other decline to autocratic tyranny.
That's what I mean - the lack of will is expressed in the study design, so that it looks like the budget available is shoestring. 5 rounds of blood draws for lab tests for phase II recipients in the protocol: 1 at screening, the last at 1 week after the second dose. Screening focused toward abnormal blood conditions and liver conditions. That's it. No effort to look for unexpected harms at all.
Pfizer's Covid vaccine "research" seems to be total theatre overall. They are just the familiar brand slapped over BioNTech's work, plus their $11 billion in annual expenses marketing machine. Pfizer doesn't even seem to know the current status of BioNTech's variant-geared trials.
Figure 2 has an interesting note: "Because of wide confidence intervals, only days 1-16 are shown"
(from https://hiddenmarkov.substack.com/p/12-daysjust-12-days): a couple of weeks later, they published https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114255 but for some reason, despite the same, wide confidence intervals, they now show up to day 25.
The peak additive protection appears to occur around day 21. I guesstimate the effect will be gone in 2 months or less.
So much for a 6 monthly booster?
Oh, nice - I'll have to look at that. The magic confidence intervals fall apart in the earlier version because the vaccinated are their own control group - there's only a handful of unvaccinated to compare with by the time other vaccinated early adopters are at day 16. I'll see what the new update finds. My hunch is that the "boosters" behave predictably - another ~4 months of infection efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 - but with rrrrreally knocked-out general cellular immunity against other viruses / cancers.
Ah yes the suppressed immune system effect (is it CD8?) that has to be ignored when accepting the mantra of "vaccines are safe and effective!"
Like "lock downs are effective" if you ignore excess mortality, economic recession, crippling inflation, erosion of political, police and medical trust, social friction, ruined childhoods, no reduced infections signal, closed businesses, government overreach, etc, etc.
One-eyed myopic appraisals of interventions only!
CD8 / Killer T Cells, yes. Nathan Thompson found a clear suppression / exhaustion effect in his patient - https://rumble.com/vnaocj-immune-system-lab-results-after-1st-and-2nd-jab.html - but it has to be remembered that circulatory t cells are not the whole population. There are resident, adaptive killer t cells throughout mucosal tissue (in addition to innate Natural Killer Cells). And the suppression after two doses might be less aberrant than we think (maybe it is a common occurrence after infection? seems unlikely but you never know). And, it could be that the observed suppression is actually a reflection of a carcinogenic effect from the Covid vaccines, as T cells get used up battling carcinogenic tissues - it is the effect of cancers, rather than the cause. Even so, triple-dosing in 6 months has to be totally off the rails of normal knock-out / recovery cycles.
*Or there weren't enough day-16-ers. One or the other.
It seems unlikely so many people would collect data this significant so poorly, purely by incompetence. It seems more likely they're purposely trying to obscure the truth.
Who knows. Of course, so much of the legwork is already done by the failure to design a monitoring system to begin with. Even in the Pfizer/BioNTech trial - You'd think that "directly measuring clinical effects at all" just couldn't fit in the budget.
Budget hasn't been a problem lately. Couple years ago most folks had never heard of trillion. They have the means, but lack the will. Competent analysts' acquiescence to government control is the same cult behavior as we've seen in every other decline to autocratic tyranny.
That's what I mean - the lack of will is expressed in the study design, so that it looks like the budget available is shoestring. 5 rounds of blood draws for lab tests for phase II recipients in the protocol: 1 at screening, the last at 1 week after the second dose. Screening focused toward abnormal blood conditions and liver conditions. That's it. No effort to look for unexpected harms at all.
Pfizer's Covid vaccine "research" seems to be total theatre overall. They are just the familiar brand slapped over BioNTech's work, plus their $11 billion in annual expenses marketing machine. Pfizer doesn't even seem to know the current status of BioNTech's variant-geared trials.