where is the studies that say they used a higher dose in clinical trials then changed it to 1/3 dose? Is there proof or is this just one mans opinion on whats happening
where is the studies that say they used a higher dose in clinical trials then changed it to 1/3 dose? Is there proof or is this just one mans opinion on whats happening
The document itself is one big fat sick joke. Pfizer needed the EUA amending to include the very youngest children, thereby providing the robust liability shield spoken about here. To get that amendment they reduced the dosage to 1/10th of the original and when, surprise, surprise, it proved safe but entirely ineffective (all in this download) they 'immunobridged'. That is to say inferred efficacy based on comparing antibody production seen in the 6m-5yr group with that seen in trials in older age groups with higher (more effect, more risk) doses.
This was done despite correlation between antibody levels and protection - the underpinning assertion when immunobridging is that there IS a correlation - being as hard to pin down as correlation between viral load and infectiousness.
What I'm saying is immunobridging, when you can't get the actual trial to demonstrate positive benefit, is beyond weak; it's as corrupt as it gets. Especially when you know the endgame has nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with achieving corporate immunity from liability.
I know this reply is late in the piece but you can see the date on the download should you choose to avail yourself of it; Pfizer got their EUA amendment July 2022 and guess what? As if by magic Comirnaty (now with a tris-sucrose buffer so not the original 'Comirnaty that Pfizer originally applied for a BLA for) is now orderable in the U.S.......it's almost as if some people, Steve Kirsch included, figured out the game.
where is the studies that say they used a higher dose in clinical trials then changed it to 1/3 dose? Is there proof or is this just one mans opinion on whats happening
https://www.fda.gov/media/159195/download
All in this download.
30ug mRNA dose (12+ years of age)
10ug mRNA doses (5-11 yrs)
3ug mRNA dose (6m - 4 years)
The document itself is one big fat sick joke. Pfizer needed the EUA amending to include the very youngest children, thereby providing the robust liability shield spoken about here. To get that amendment they reduced the dosage to 1/10th of the original and when, surprise, surprise, it proved safe but entirely ineffective (all in this download) they 'immunobridged'. That is to say inferred efficacy based on comparing antibody production seen in the 6m-5yr group with that seen in trials in older age groups with higher (more effect, more risk) doses.
This was done despite correlation between antibody levels and protection - the underpinning assertion when immunobridging is that there IS a correlation - being as hard to pin down as correlation between viral load and infectiousness.
What I'm saying is immunobridging, when you can't get the actual trial to demonstrate positive benefit, is beyond weak; it's as corrupt as it gets. Especially when you know the endgame has nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with achieving corporate immunity from liability.
I know this reply is late in the piece but you can see the date on the download should you choose to avail yourself of it; Pfizer got their EUA amendment July 2022 and guess what? As if by magic Comirnaty (now with a tris-sucrose buffer so not the original 'Comirnaty that Pfizer originally applied for a BLA for) is now orderable in the U.S.......it's almost as if some people, Steve Kirsch included, figured out the game.