This paper seems to imply that there is no b-cell memory as a result of "vaccination" and therefore may explain why the perceived need for furthers jabs of the same "formula". The question is why are the titers for synthetic immunity so much higher than those with natural acquired immunity and why does synthetic spike antibodies decay at a 40%/month rate and diminish to non-detectable after only 6 months? Whereas NI antibodies/titers wane at only 5%/month are are still detectable much longer. The question is would they "vaccines" have worked if the dose was set to be similar to that of NI titers in recently recovered individuals? I suspect the answer would be no and they probably knew this well before they jabbed anyone outside of their trials.
"But, as Israel has now shown with conclusive data antibody titers from vaccination wane at 40% a month while those from infection decrease at a much slower rate and in fact broaden in terms of recognition to the virus over time.
Why?
The broadening is indicative of B-cell recall, which is utterly crucial for lasting immunity. Antibodies do not circulate forever in the blood and other tissues; they eventually degrade and are replaced -- if your body's immune system has been trained. Your B-cells are largely responsible for this, along with T-cells and a whole cadre of other components of the immune system. This is why monoclonal antibody infusions protect you right now, when infected, but do not provide lasting immunity on their own. The infection itself does, but not the infusion. If you give the infusion to a non-infected person you wasted it; they have protection for a short period of time but it goes away.
The evidence from these now-published decay rates is that B-cell training does not happen with any of these vaccines. This is important and, it would appear, both Pfizer and Moderna (along with J&J) either knew or should have known this. In fact they all may have deliberately rigged their studies to be submitted for EUAs knowing the failure to produce a durable immune response was not going to be discovered due to time considerations. This cannot be proved without a bevvy of subpoenas of course but it is a reasonable and rational explanation for setting the dose and produced titer where they all did.
You can bet the vaccine makers will all do everything in their power to evade disclosure of what they knew and when in this regard because if in fact they knew that B-cell induction did not happen and deliberately set dosing to produce a result intended to game the EUA process that is quite-arguably intentional misconduct which is the bar that must be cleared to void their legal immunity for all of the adverse events PLUS all those who got infected as the defectively-produced immunity waned.
Consider a 40% per month decay rate for these injections and a natural infection that produces a titer of "100" (units don't matter for this purpose, nor does the actual number -- just the ratio.)
If the jab produces an original titer of 1,000 (10x as much) you get the following titer level on a monthly basis for the jabs:
0: 1,000
1: 600
2: 360
3: 216
4: 129
5: 77
6: 46
At six months you're probably below the protection threshold. Note that it takes 12 months, starting from 100 with a 5% monthly decay for natural infection, to reach the same titer.
So why does the titer decay so much slower if you get infected? Simple: It doesn't actually go away; natural infection trains your B-cells which is a durable response and thus capable of immediately restoring protection if you get challenged with the virus again, which you will. This is why the Cleveland Clinic, following their employees who got infected, found zero re-infections over more than a year's time among more than 1,000 infected and recovered individuals. It is also why a recent study found that natural infection and recovery was 13x as protective as the jabs."
So I skimmed it, and honestly I must admit I'm not good with Immunology (I'm learning, but I prefer pharmaceutical chemistry) but it seems like the important thing lies with the difference between plasmablast and memory b cell formation.
It seems like plasmablasts may be formed early in the infection to produce antibodies while memory B cells take longer to specialize.
So here we may be left with a few scenarios:
1. The vaccines may be eliminated quickly before memory b cells can form.
2. The use of an antigen-based vaccine may not be able to produce the same robust immune stimulation; if you can just produce an immune response that can eliminate the spike protein then it may be good enough.
I'll need to look more into it.
I just came across a paper, that may help, although I only skimmed it. The whole arena of immunology is very complex, and every time it seems like I learned something there's something else that goes against it (like the original antigenic sin pieces).
Really appreciate the paper! I'll try to find more information about this!
Great information - now why are people with NI being fired from their jobs for not getting vaccinated! So much of what Lord Fauci and his overlords are telling us is deplorable.
You can't have vax passports and make recurring revenue or CONTROL your population with said vpp's if only a portion is compliant. Look at Italy, France, and Australia. They have you "under their thumb" so to speak if you don't comply. Just like Chyna.
Seems Pfizer hasn't actually released any of their data on the boosters - just the infamous press releases claiming wonderful efficacy! No data for anyone to even ponder or scrutinize. Also, with the mixed jabs (and the coercion to gets everyone vaccinated) it seems they are truly vaccinating their way out of control groups which will make their data even more confounding.
It's absolutely horrifying that they are acting as if all of these vaccines are the same. Now, we have an issue of vaccinating 5-11. There are people discussing that the risk of myocarditis in children (I believe young boys) is around 1/5,000 and yet the study only contained 2,200 patients. It seems like a very easy way to underpower your study to mask any possible adverse events.
Regarding #2 above: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.19.21262111v1
This paper seems to imply that there is no b-cell memory as a result of "vaccination" and therefore may explain why the perceived need for furthers jabs of the same "formula". The question is why are the titers for synthetic immunity so much higher than those with natural acquired immunity and why does synthetic spike antibodies decay at a 40%/month rate and diminish to non-detectable after only 6 months? Whereas NI antibodies/titers wane at only 5%/month are are still detectable much longer. The question is would they "vaccines" have worked if the dose was set to be similar to that of NI titers in recently recovered individuals? I suspect the answer would be no and they probably knew this well before they jabbed anyone outside of their trials.
See: There's An Off Ramp - But It Has A Price https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=243442
"But, as Israel has now shown with conclusive data antibody titers from vaccination wane at 40% a month while those from infection decrease at a much slower rate and in fact broaden in terms of recognition to the virus over time.
Why?
The broadening is indicative of B-cell recall, which is utterly crucial for lasting immunity. Antibodies do not circulate forever in the blood and other tissues; they eventually degrade and are replaced -- if your body's immune system has been trained. Your B-cells are largely responsible for this, along with T-cells and a whole cadre of other components of the immune system. This is why monoclonal antibody infusions protect you right now, when infected, but do not provide lasting immunity on their own. The infection itself does, but not the infusion. If you give the infusion to a non-infected person you wasted it; they have protection for a short period of time but it goes away.
The evidence from these now-published decay rates is that B-cell training does not happen with any of these vaccines. This is important and, it would appear, both Pfizer and Moderna (along with J&J) either knew or should have known this. In fact they all may have deliberately rigged their studies to be submitted for EUAs knowing the failure to produce a durable immune response was not going to be discovered due to time considerations. This cannot be proved without a bevvy of subpoenas of course but it is a reasonable and rational explanation for setting the dose and produced titer where they all did.
You can bet the vaccine makers will all do everything in their power to evade disclosure of what they knew and when in this regard because if in fact they knew that B-cell induction did not happen and deliberately set dosing to produce a result intended to game the EUA process that is quite-arguably intentional misconduct which is the bar that must be cleared to void their legal immunity for all of the adverse events PLUS all those who got infected as the defectively-produced immunity waned.
Consider a 40% per month decay rate for these injections and a natural infection that produces a titer of "100" (units don't matter for this purpose, nor does the actual number -- just the ratio.)
If the jab produces an original titer of 1,000 (10x as much) you get the following titer level on a monthly basis for the jabs:
0: 1,000
1: 600
2: 360
3: 216
4: 129
5: 77
6: 46
At six months you're probably below the protection threshold. Note that it takes 12 months, starting from 100 with a 5% monthly decay for natural infection, to reach the same titer.
So why does the titer decay so much slower if you get infected? Simple: It doesn't actually go away; natural infection trains your B-cells which is a durable response and thus capable of immediately restoring protection if you get challenged with the virus again, which you will. This is why the Cleveland Clinic, following their employees who got infected, found zero re-infections over more than a year's time among more than 1,000 infected and recovered individuals. It is also why a recent study found that natural infection and recovery was 13x as protective as the jabs."
Thanks for posting that!
So I skimmed it, and honestly I must admit I'm not good with Immunology (I'm learning, but I prefer pharmaceutical chemistry) but it seems like the important thing lies with the difference between plasmablast and memory b cell formation.
It seems like plasmablasts may be formed early in the infection to produce antibodies while memory B cells take longer to specialize.
So here we may be left with a few scenarios:
1. The vaccines may be eliminated quickly before memory b cells can form.
2. The use of an antigen-based vaccine may not be able to produce the same robust immune stimulation; if you can just produce an immune response that can eliminate the spike protein then it may be good enough.
I'll need to look more into it.
I just came across a paper, that may help, although I only skimmed it. The whole arena of immunology is very complex, and every time it seems like I learned something there's something else that goes against it (like the original antigenic sin pieces).
Really appreciate the paper! I'll try to find more information about this!
"Defining antigen-specific plasmablast and memory B cell subsets in blood following viral infection and vaccination of humans": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5054979/
Great information - now why are people with NI being fired from their jobs for not getting vaccinated! So much of what Lord Fauci and his overlords are telling us is deplorable.
It's either A) Money, B) Power, or C) Both
You can't have vax passports and make recurring revenue or CONTROL your population with said vpp's if only a portion is compliant. Look at Italy, France, and Australia. They have you "under their thumb" so to speak if you don't comply. Just like Chyna.
Seems Pfizer hasn't actually released any of their data on the boosters - just the infamous press releases claiming wonderful efficacy! No data for anyone to even ponder or scrutinize. Also, with the mixed jabs (and the coercion to gets everyone vaccinated) it seems they are truly vaccinating their way out of control groups which will make their data even more confounding.
It's absolutely horrifying that they are acting as if all of these vaccines are the same. Now, we have an issue of vaccinating 5-11. There are people discussing that the risk of myocarditis in children (I believe young boys) is around 1/5,000 and yet the study only contained 2,200 patients. It seems like a very easy way to underpower your study to mask any possible adverse events.
Check out this piece on stats of myocarditis - just another person trying to make sense of the senselessness: https://pebbleinthepond.substack.com/p/a-numbers-game