6 ms·

> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027869152 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027869152... Which has been thoroughly debunk

by mike_d 4y ago

> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027869152 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027869152... Which has been thoroughly debunked by the scientific community. "Food and Chemical Toxicology" is not a respected journal, and most famously published the "GMO foods cause cancer" paper that ended up being retracted. Here is a good video on why the author is a quack: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwoRsj7AE7A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwoRsj7AE7A

Consultant32452 4y ago
The Lancet data shows the same conclusion through different means. Did you have any thoughts on that?
- mike_d 4y ago
  No it doesn't? Maybe you have the wrong link? The link you provided is just a standard vaccine efficacy over time study using data from Sweden. These are a dime a dozen and all show two things: 1) you are less likely to die when vaccinated, and 2) immune response reduces over time so you need boosters.