Let's See How COVID-19 Vaccine Papers Can Be Misleading
Don't Use Bad Science To Push More RNA
"A colleague and friend asked me what I thought of a recent publication. For the benefit of others, I will provide a critique of it here. Why is this important?
Because it shows people how to differentiate the experts they should be listening to from those who stand on a foundation of fatally flawed science.
The paper is entitled “Repetitive mRNA vaccination is required to improve the quality of broad-spectrum anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the absence of CXCL13”, and it can be found here (Da Silva, et al., 2023).
The paper assesses antibody responses ...
[Reminder: Antibody responses are a surrogate, and prove nothing about immunity. They merely suggest.]
https://viralimmunologist.substack.com/p/lets-see-how-covid-19-vaccine-papers
I am watching and listening to the Town Hall in Red Deer on X and covering a lot of good questions and panelists. Over 10,000 watching.
I wish the media would honestly cover it but it will be slammed on talk shows and newspapers.
I noticed that our membership is growing so people must be mentioning this group around. Welcome.
We have a few regular posters, but anyone can post, so if you come across something especially worth passing on, please do.
For those who may be new or who have been here for a while and never posted our group enjoys articles and other posts that provide a unique perspective and challenge the common narratives, fill in blanks, or simply entertain.
Readers 'like' some articles more than others, but 'liking' to me is more a sign that we found the article useful than that we agree with it. I often 'like' articles that i thought to be are quirky, off-base, or just plain wrong, but worth reading.
