Whilst I work on explaining what this data even is, I believe it’s probably valuable that I just post this now. Put simply, what JikkyLeaks claimed, was that deep within the ‘adva’ file which was released as part of the Pfizer Documents, was data showing the N-antibody status of the Pfizer trial participants. Those who were NEGATIVE at Visit 1 and then POSITIVE at Visit 3 had gone on to contract Covid-19 during the trial, and as such, this is another way of measuring the efficacy of the vaccine. We didn’t have this data until the Pfizer Documents were released.
There's one thing I'm not sure, because I'm not an immunologist: does the fact that only 53% less people in the vaccinated group had developed N-antibodies *prove* a lack of efficacy?
The fact people had N-antibodies proves they *met* the virus, but what does it say about their protection? Even if the vaccine had perfect efficacy in protecting people, couldn't (shouldn't) their immune system build N-antibodies after meeting the virus, even though vaccine-induced S-antibodies were doing the job getting rid of the virus?
I remember reading a paper explaining that Moderna's Covid vaccine seems to prevent people who get breakthrough infections from building proper N-antibodies that would strengthen their immune response for next time they meet a SARS-CoV2 virus. So maybe this 53% reduction of N-antibodies in vaccinees was the result of the impairment of the sane reaction their immune system should have had meeting a virus ?
Another way of asking: with a really perfect vaccine, should the reduction in the number of patients with N-antibodies be 100% or 0% in comparison to the placebo group?
Terrific work, thank you. But where on Earth are the original data of 8 and 162, from which so much was inferred by so many for so long?? Are they in fact 75 and 160 or is there another location of those data?
Great work, once more!
There's one thing I'm not sure, because I'm not an immunologist: does the fact that only 53% less people in the vaccinated group had developed N-antibodies *prove* a lack of efficacy?
The fact people had N-antibodies proves they *met* the virus, but what does it say about their protection? Even if the vaccine had perfect efficacy in protecting people, couldn't (shouldn't) their immune system build N-antibodies after meeting the virus, even though vaccine-induced S-antibodies were doing the job getting rid of the virus?
I remember reading a paper explaining that Moderna's Covid vaccine seems to prevent people who get breakthrough infections from building proper N-antibodies that would strengthen their immune response for next time they meet a SARS-CoV2 virus. So maybe this 53% reduction of N-antibodies in vaccinees was the result of the impairment of the sane reaction their immune system should have had meeting a virus ?
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.04.18.22271936v1
Another way of asking: with a really perfect vaccine, should the reduction in the number of patients with N-antibodies be 100% or 0% in comparison to the placebo group?
Terrific work, thank you. But where on Earth are the original data of 8 and 162, from which so much was inferred by so many for so long?? Are they in fact 75 and 160 or is there another location of those data?
Great work. Thank you!
With only 53% efficacy and roughly 1,000 adverse reactions, seems like taking the jab was a risky venture.
Useful - thanks
Thank you!