Add to that all research comparing natural immunity to vaccine immunity is showing... natural is just oh so much better!
This statement is simply false. The non-scientific term for this is jumping to conclusions.
Another example of what I just observed and noted, you just can't seem to help yourself in assuming and asserting what is shown in "
all studies" or "
all research". I cited, quoted, and linked two references which demonstrated that your statement regarding what
"all research comparing natural immunity to vaccine immunity" shows was NOT what "all research" shows and is therefore a false assertion.
Your response was to cite one paper from Israel and to provide three links from three different sources
to that one single paper. It is the same paper from Israel that you mentioned earlier when you made the false assertion regarding "all research". That's four times, in total, that you've cited the same retrospective observational study from Israel. I hate to tell you this, but no matter how many times or how many different links you provide to one research paper; that one paper does NOT represent "all research" on the subject
as I have already clearly shown.
Interestingly, you decided not to mention any of the limitations of that one retrospective observational study from Israel as discussed in
your science.org link...
Like the small size of the comparison data in the study...
"infections and other events analyzed for the comparisons were “small.” For instance, the higher hospitalization rate in the 32,000-person analysis was based on just eight hospitalizations in a vaccinated group and one in a previously infected group. And the 13-fold increased risk of infection in the same analysis was based on just 238 infections in the vaccinated population, less than 1.5% of the more than 16,000 people, versus 19 reinfections among a similar number of people who once had SARS-CoV-2."Like the inherent weakness of a retrospective observational study which lacks testing compared to
prospective studies...
"As for the Israel medical records study, Topol and others point out several limitations, such as the inherent weakness of a retrospective analysis compared with a prospective study that regularly tests all participants as it tracks new infections, symptomatic infections, hospitalizations, and deaths going forward in time. “It will be important to see these findings replicated or refuted,” says Natalie Dean, a biostatistician at Emory University. She adds: “The biggest limitation in the study is that testing [for SARS-CoV-2 infection] is still a voluntary thing—it’s not part of the study design.” That means, she says, that comparisons could be confounded if, for example, previously infected people who developed mild symptoms were less likely to get tested than vaccinated people, perhaps because they think they are immune."Or the
limitations noted by the authors of the paper themselves...
"Furthermore, the authors of the study acknowledged that it had several limitations. For one, they said that the analysis only assessed protection from the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine “and therefore does not address other vaccines or long-term protection following a third dose, of which the deployment is underway in Israel.” The authors also said that because they conducted an “observational real-world study,” where polymerase chain reaction, or PCR, screening for the coronavirus was not required, “we might be underestimating asymptomatic infections, as these individuals often do not get tested.” “Lastly,” the authors of the Israeli study wrote, “although we controlled for age, sex, and region of residence, our results might be affected by differences between the groups in terms of health behaviors (such as social distancing and mask wearing), a possible confounder that was not assessed.”Or the concerns regarding the limitations of the study expressed by other scientists which I won't list, but for those actually interested in a more complete picture of this single study, I would recommend
starting with the first 8-minutes of
this video from the University of Nebraska Med Center which discusses the Israel study and potential statistical biases (which includes discussion of survivorship bias in statistical analyses, an interesting topic in itself) in addition to
a review of this article.
You concluded your response with...
I think the problem for you, is that you live in a bubble and do not look at information that does not confirm priors.
You're free to assume whatever you like,
clearly. But citing one paper from Israel multiple times has yet to convince me of your assertion that "all research" is in agreement with that study—likely because I already know that's false and other studies have come to the opposite conclusion. I know that because I bothered to research your claim. I did that because there may be others gullible enough to believe that claim without checking first, like yourself.
I already showed in my earlier post that your claim regarding "
all research comparing natural immunity to vaccine immunity"
is not true. Why you keep repeatedly offering the same study as evidence of your claim that this single study is representative of the conclusions of "
all research", as if repeating it would somehow make it more true, only you know.
