Please calm down and critically think if you can. Maybe you cannot.
The point is the definition of vaccine. People would not take a Polio vaccine if a majority of people inoculated would contract polio anyway. Vaccine is and always has been the category of drugs that inoculates people from being infected. Other drugs reduce symptoms, but they are not called vaccines.
The data is from several countries where they rate of infection from the variants was higher for those who got the jabs and boosters...than those that did not. Look it up.
Your study shows that antibodies from natural immunity are more effective than antibodies from vaccination, but says nothing about "vaccines destroying natural immunity," whatever the f**k that phrase is supposed to mean.
The study found that a large portion of the antibodies created by the vaccine are non-neutralizing. That gives a real risk of enhancing infection through Antibody Dependant Enhancement (ADE). Basically your body stops recognizing viruses correctly and simple illnesses become deadly.
Okay, now you've linked to a study showing that the vaccines are effective AND that they seem to increase immune response to stimulus with fungi, which seems like maybe it's a good thing?
Unbelievable. Covid spreads easily, rapidly. Polio does not. There is no comparison.
You ought to cite the science you claim about the vaccines destroying natural immunity.
Please calm down and critically think if you can. Maybe you cannot.
The point is the definition of vaccine. People would not take a Polio vaccine if a majority of people inoculated would contract polio anyway. Vaccine is and always has been the category of drugs that inoculates people from being infected. Other drugs reduce symptoms, but they are not called vaccines.
The data is from several countries where they rate of infection from the variants was higher for those who got the jabs and boosters...than those that did not. Look it up.
Here is just one of many. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.07.21253098v2
Your study shows that antibodies from natural immunity are more effective than antibodies from vaccination, but says nothing about "vaccines destroying natural immunity," whatever the f**k that phrase is supposed to mean.
And letтАЩs not forget that natural immunity wanes.
The study found that a large portion of the antibodies created by the vaccine are non-neutralizing. That gives a real risk of enhancing infection through Antibody Dependant Enhancement (ADE). Basically your body stops recognizing viruses correctly and simple illnesses become deadly.
Here is some info regarding negative vaccine efficacy https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/negative-vaccine-efficacy-example?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web&s=r
Old people, and people with health problems, tend to be triple-vaccinated.
Old people, and people with health problems, tend to require hospitalization (for a million different reasons).
It's no surprise at all if most of the people in a hospital are triple-vaccinated. This indicates nothing about vaccine efficacy.
I can provide examples all day.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.03.21256520v1.full
Okay, now you've linked to a study showing that the vaccines are effective AND that they seem to increase immune response to stimulus with fungi, which seems like maybe it's a good thing?
What is your point, again?