I agree the first study shows a detrimental effect of vaccines on naturally acquired immunity.
With regard to the claim that vaccines show negative efficacy after a few months- if the vaccines were effective initially and ( apart from the increased susceptibility in the first couple of weeks) there does seem to be evidence of this, then …
I agree the first study shows a detrimental effect of vaccines on naturally acquired immunity.
With regard to the claim that vaccines show negative efficacy after a few months- if the vaccines were effective initially and ( apart from the increased susceptibility in the first couple of weeks) there does seem to be evidence of this, then could it not be the case that the vaccines wear off after a few months and all the vaxed people are catching up with the unvaxed ( and overtaking them). As the comparator is always the unvaxed, who, a few months later are more likely to have been infected and acquired natural immunity, then what looks like negative efficacy is just zero efficacy and catch up?
I agree the first study shows a detrimental effect of vaccines on naturally acquired immunity.
With regard to the claim that vaccines show negative efficacy after a few months- if the vaccines were effective initially and ( apart from the increased susceptibility in the first couple of weeks) there does seem to be evidence of this, then could it not be the case that the vaccines wear off after a few months and all the vaxed people are catching up with the unvaxed ( and overtaking them). As the comparator is always the unvaxed, who, a few months later are more likely to have been infected and acquired natural immunity, then what looks like negative efficacy is just zero efficacy and catch up?