***More Updated Pfizer documentation
https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-interim-mth6-discontinued-patients.pdf
Scan through this link above……it lists the various reasons for why people withdrew from the trial. There is 230+ pages and 10-12 cases per page…..so that is conservatively 2300 people who allegedly WITHDREW from the study at the 6 month mark…….some were death, many withdrew consent, some opted for emergency use vaccine at work (healthcare employees). Interesting the reasons, the majority were “chose to withdraw/not proceed”. Wonder why they backed out? What kind of adverse event did they have? Or saw someone else have?
https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-interim-mth6-efficacy-response.pdf
This dataset above, 5 pages worth, is interesting because it again verifies that PFIZER KNEW IN JANUARY 2021 THAT THE VACCINES IMMUNITY WANED AND FAST. Look at the Rel Days column. That is days post vaccine. So for the first person in this data, they were measured at day 1,22,31, and 183. Their titer was 10, 127, 135, and 28 respectively. Their S1 (spike protein) binding did the same thing. Baseline, 530, 2786, and 463 respectively. The antibodies waned to near baseline within 5 months. They knew all along that most of the trial recipients had ZERO protection from their vaccine when it was rolled out to the general public in late 2020/early 2021. So, if you were in a vaccine trial from July 2020-Jan 2021, your immunity levels were nearly back to baseline. PFIZER KNEW boosters would be needed. NEVER mentioned that until, oh, late summer 2021. But they knew it was necessary many months before. The trial cases all reacted predictably and with the same bell curve. The 4th case on this page had a RAPID drop in S1 spike protein binding. They went from 13,393 at 30 days post vax down to 1,700 just 5 months later.
Then there is this treasure trove. This document is the trial participants, placebo AND vaccinated, that measured their N-antibodies AND documented an eventual positive covid test. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-interim-mth6-lab-measurements-sensitive.pdf
What is important in THIS data is that it shows that those who DID receive the Pfizer vaccine did NOT have measurable N-antibodies at most of their checks, and it shows when they tested positive for covid. Were these different cases from the dataset above that showed N-binding at 30 days? What is the difference between the N50 and the N-binding assay? That is never disseminated in the abbreviations in each dataset.
On this page for example, there is one person who received the BNT vaccine. Measures they had covid symptoms on 11-7 thru 11-13-2020. Tested positive for covid on 11-9-20. They had received dose 1 FOUR days prior. Their n-binding assay popped positive AFTER having covid.
Here is another one. Patient received 1 dose. 10 days after vaccine, they were symptomatic from 10-31 thru 11-4-20. Tested positive for covid in 11-2-20. Their N-binding NEVER turned positive. What does this suggest?
Another one. Two people received the vaccine. One was day 2 from first vaccine, the other was day 7 post first vaccine. One states they had symptoms from 12-31-20 thru 2-15-21. The other had symptoms from 1-10 thru 1-20-21. Tested positive in January 2021. The one with the LONGEST duration of symptoms NEVER showed a N-binding seroconversion.
What does all of this mean? Well, Pfizer laid out their N-binding requirements for the study in another document. See below. Look through all of these pages, ignore the placebo ones because odds are, if they show N-binding it is because they had covid. And, honestly, same goes for the vaccinated. They most likely formed n-binding antibody when they ended up sick with covid. The problem is the N-binding data does not say WHEN those 3 levels were taken. One is known to be pre-vaccine. The other two, well, who knows. Some who were vaccinated and had covid never seroconverted to an N-binding positive reading if it was done at 6/12 months later. We know that data is not possible yet, because these trials had just wrapped up maybe 6 months of data at this point at best. We cannot have 6 month data in April on someone vaccinated in December. I know. All of this is clear as mud.
One possibility I want to throw out here……from other journal articles I have read, is that n-antibody seroconversion is roughly 46% in those vaccinated that later caught covid, versus in the neighborhood of 93% of the unvaccinated who later caught covid. The n-antibodies are not the same as the spike protein antibodies, and the presence of S-antibodies does not guarantee seroconversion to n-antibodies. We may be seeing THAT unfold here in these 2 different documents. They may have separated out the n-antibody positives into one table and the other table was the n-antibody negatives. Who knows……
Moral of the story here? When was N-binding measured? Why does the n-binding in this study not match the link above it that showed a decrease in immunity as vaccines waned with time in the body? The data conflicts and counters itself quite honestly. This is a hodgepodge of numbers and data points with no grand scale to measure it against. Because the photo below is their “table of abbreviations” and it is about as clear as mud.
And this is the flowchart for that data set above.
Junk science is what I call this. After writing two extensive dissertations, I can say this. My doctoral professor would have kicked me out of her office if I presented my study data in this fashion. Like literally woulda put a Nike up my butt and kicked me out and down the hallway. Sadly, I think the data drops and .zip files were done this way for a reason. Make it impossible to trace what they were doing, and hide the data in a .zip Linux file.