I see one graph where it appears the protection peaks at 24 days, do you mind expanding on how you determine no long-term benefit / 12 more days of spiking immunoglobulin?
It appears to me that (from the same graph - figure 2) - just as for the original jabs (worry window), you are pretty much in deep sht for the first week after the booster shot. :-/
You raise a good point that the above referenced paper only ever engages in infection rate outcomes, not immunoglobulin assay numbers. I really wish they had, but I suspect they learned early that the results of an expensive examination like that was not going to produce "favorable" results. My point is that the booster was weak in effect, that they dredged data mercilessly to discover any signal at all that bolsters a booster argument, and in the end, the careful observer will note that they scrupulously narrowed the observation window to 12 days beyond the 12 day worry window, and then promptly stopped speaking.
My claim is an inference from other works that have demonstrated humoral IgG to S1 protein is the primary product of O.G. Wuhan sequence mRNA vaccination (BioNTech/Pfizer). Indeed, the response can ONLY be IgG directed at this protein because no other viral sequences were part of the magic science juice. Note that the magic science juice never encounters mucosal surfaces (precluding IgA production), and it never makes any membrane-bound proteins (like nucleocapsid) likely to promote (cytotoxic) CD8+ memory phenotype T-cell populations, the type seen in variant-resistant post-infecteds (aka natural immunes).
SO, IFF any "Factor Reduction in Confirmed Infection Rate" can be quantified, it has to be strictly as a result of IgG, which they show in Figure 1 declines into obscurity/insignificance 12 days after the 12th day Factor Reduction "pop." From the paper: "Because of wide confidence intervals [ha], only days 1 through 25 are shown." In Figure 2, by Day 25, as you can see, the p-beta error bar is gigantic, indicating that the observed effect happened by chance or an external cause outside the hypothesis. Could that cause be plasma cells variably switching off IgG production after clearing the latest S1 insult? Sure. Could also be ADE. Could be new variants. Could be munging the background genetics and comorbidities of the disparate populations included in the study....the list is long.
What is not discussed in the paper (but why would it be?) is the simple fact that an immunonaïve person, fresh from Mars, according to the global propaganda, would require 10-15 days (mean ~12) to conjure an immune response that could counter this virum. So, in the end, a booster jab head-to-head with a fresh walk-in patient provides roughly the same outcome, and not some hyped robust protection.
Ah yes the error bars - so easy to ignore when looking at pretty colours!
Appreciate the explanation - makes sense.
Day 25 looks like an error / noise / mistake, given how clearly the curve is formed - I bet it would stand out like dog's balls if they went to day 60, 90, 180 or 360 as they should.
JFC this just hit me like a tonne of bricks. It lasts 12 days. WTAF? Not 6 months, not even 1 month. That graph would essentially hit baseline at 30 days.
I see one graph where it appears the protection peaks at 24 days, do you mind expanding on how you determine no long-term benefit / 12 more days of spiking immunoglobulin?
It appears to me that (from the same graph - figure 2) - just as for the original jabs (worry window), you are pretty much in deep sht for the first week after the booster shot. :-/
You raise a good point that the above referenced paper only ever engages in infection rate outcomes, not immunoglobulin assay numbers. I really wish they had, but I suspect they learned early that the results of an expensive examination like that was not going to produce "favorable" results. My point is that the booster was weak in effect, that they dredged data mercilessly to discover any signal at all that bolsters a booster argument, and in the end, the careful observer will note that they scrupulously narrowed the observation window to 12 days beyond the 12 day worry window, and then promptly stopped speaking.
My claim is an inference from other works that have demonstrated humoral IgG to S1 protein is the primary product of O.G. Wuhan sequence mRNA vaccination (BioNTech/Pfizer). Indeed, the response can ONLY be IgG directed at this protein because no other viral sequences were part of the magic science juice. Note that the magic science juice never encounters mucosal surfaces (precluding IgA production), and it never makes any membrane-bound proteins (like nucleocapsid) likely to promote (cytotoxic) CD8+ memory phenotype T-cell populations, the type seen in variant-resistant post-infecteds (aka natural immunes).
SO, IFF any "Factor Reduction in Confirmed Infection Rate" can be quantified, it has to be strictly as a result of IgG, which they show in Figure 1 declines into obscurity/insignificance 12 days after the 12th day Factor Reduction "pop." From the paper: "Because of wide confidence intervals [ha], only days 1 through 25 are shown." In Figure 2, by Day 25, as you can see, the p-beta error bar is gigantic, indicating that the observed effect happened by chance or an external cause outside the hypothesis. Could that cause be plasma cells variably switching off IgG production after clearing the latest S1 insult? Sure. Could also be ADE. Could be new variants. Could be munging the background genetics and comorbidities of the disparate populations included in the study....the list is long.
What is not discussed in the paper (but why would it be?) is the simple fact that an immunonaïve person, fresh from Mars, according to the global propaganda, would require 10-15 days (mean ~12) to conjure an immune response that could counter this virum. So, in the end, a booster jab head-to-head with a fresh walk-in patient provides roughly the same outcome, and not some hyped robust protection.
Ah yes the error bars - so easy to ignore when looking at pretty colours!
Appreciate the explanation - makes sense.
Day 25 looks like an error / noise / mistake, given how clearly the curve is formed - I bet it would stand out like dog's balls if they went to day 60, 90, 180 or 360 as they should.
JFC this just hit me like a tonne of bricks. It lasts 12 days. WTAF? Not 6 months, not even 1 month. That graph would essentially hit baseline at 30 days.