Natural Immunity Proving Much Better Than Vaccines - Page 2

Sapper Redux

Joined: Oct 17, 2010

Posts: 17,248

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to NicosMachine • 12:19p, 2/6/22

The actual numbers in their study and the structure of their study are garbage. Look again at the trend line and then look at the P value. It's a worthless study.

88planoAg

Joined: Feb 8, 2007

Posts: 6,201

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to NicosMachine • 12:28p, 2/6/22

NicosMachine said:

The research paper is very good evidence for infection acquired antibody durability. The presence of such antibodies is highly correlated to high levels of immunity. The finding corresponds with the findings of other studies.There are current studies tracking individuals over time. By structuring this study in the manner they did, the authors were able to "reach back" even further to find evidence of antibodies up to 20 months after infection. Of course it is not conclusive. It has limitations as do all studies. To act as if they idea of lasting immunity (infection acquired antibodies) is some sort of insane idea embraced only by people who "lack the ability to comprehend and understand science" is actually laughable. You can't fathom you are wrong on the idea of lasting immunity. You are, and no amount of ALL CAPS changes that fact.

People who are responding to you are not refuting evidence of durable immunity exists.

They are arguing that THIS study doesn't support what you are saying it does.