The FDA's Infant COVID Vax Fraud - Part VI: 'Immunobridging'

This is the sixth part of an ongoing series of newsletters exposing the FDA's blatant scientific fraud in authorizing Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine for "emergency use" in infants and toddlers.

Each of these newsletters is a summary version of a section from a major paper I'm working on that I'll probably publish as a downloadable e-book. It will, of course, be fully referenced.

Until now, we've been focused on how the FDA exaggerated the risks to children from COVID-19. Today, we'll shift gears and start looking at the numerous fraudulent aspects of the "immunobridging" analysis that the FDA conducted as the basis for its authorization decision.

In case you missed any of the previous installments, you can read them online here:

The FDA's decision was not based on demonstration of vaccine efficacy. Instead, the FDA relied on "immunobridging", which involved a comparison of the level of neutralizing antibodies observed in the blood of infants and toddlers with the level observed in older children.

The FDA reasoned that since a similar antibody titer was observed with the younger children, therefore the vaccine will be effective.

However, that is a non sequitur fallacy: the conclusion does not follow from the premise. Moreover, the FDA knows that its conclusion is a logical fallacy.

Just because a person has a high level of antibodies does not mean that they are protected against the disease.

In fact, the FDA has publicly warned people against considering a positive antibody test as evidence of immunity. Why? Because the FDA is fully aware that "correlates of immunity" have not been scientifically established for SARS-CoV-2.

That means that scientists do not yet understand what specific immune responses correlate to protection.

The FDA admits this in its decision memorandum, yet it relied on its non sequitur fallacy anyway.

During a meeting of the FDA's vaccine advisory committee on June 28, a Pfizer representative also acknowledged that "there is no established correlate of protection."

It's important to note that the FDA's public warnings not to interpret a positive antibody test as evidence of immunity is disingenuous inasmuch as natural immunity is concerned. This is because evidence of prior infection is evidence of immunity.

However, the vaccines do not induce the same kind of immunity, so its warnings to vaccinated people not to interpret a positive antibody test as evidence of immunity is sincere.

It is not merely that there is no specific level of antibodies that correlate to immunity. In fact, a consistent observation in the literature since the start of the pandemic is that a high level of antibodies is associated with severe COVID-19. This association exists independently from age.

People with mild symptoms or who never develop the clinical disease at all, by contrast, tend to have a lower level of antibodies.

That might seem counterintuitive, but it actually makes a lot of sense: a highly effective immune response simply is not dependent on a high concentration of antibodies in the blood.

Instead, as top immunologists have observed, protection against disease appears to be more highly dependent on cellular immunity, which involves T cells and is distinct from humoral immunity, which refers specifically to the protection from circulating antibodies.

The FDA tried ridiculously to justify its use of a non sequitur fallacy by asserting that the antibody levels used for its "immunobridging" analysis "do not need to be scientifically established to predict protection" but only need to be "clinically relevant to the disease".

Thus, the FDA justified one logical fallacy with another. To illustrate, antibodies to the nucleocapsid (N) protein of SARS-CoV-2, which the vaccines do not induce, are "clinically relevant", but naturally the FDA does not tout a high level of anti-N antibodies as evidence of immunity.

The FDA also cited regulatory precedent for "immunobridging" with other vaccines, which effectively amounts to the argument that since it had perpetrated scientific fraud in the past, therefore it was okay to perpetrate the same scientific fraud in this case.

In sum, the first major problem with the FDA's "immunobridging" analysis is that it assumes that "antibodies = immunity" even though this is known to be false.

But that's just the start of the FDA's scientific fraud as it relates to its "immunobridging" analysis. We'll take a look at a second instance of fraud in the same analysis in the next newsletter in this series.