Anecdotal stories in magazines are just clickbait for the superstitious and gullible.
great to see that vinty agrees his stories are not to be taken seriously
Anecdotal stories in magazines are just clickbait for the superstitious and gullible.
Just that, it's a technical term and it's not being used correctly.Why? It is an accepted term in the field of infectious diseases.
What is your reasoning?
None of which proves immunity timescale nor gives any credibility that there is any other way to deal with Covid than current policy.
Naturally acquired Herd immunity not a solution, never has been, never will be.
You obviously prefer stories from the Lancet rather than real science.great to see that vinty agrees his stories are not to be taken seriously
The research i quoted was carried out by scientific professionals who specialise in immunology.great to see that vinty agrees his stories are not to be taken seriously
Checkout the Lancet fraud.A more recent medical article from a trusted source: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30783-0/fulltext
It would appear it's growing increasingly likely that not only is re-infection possible, it results in an even worse response. Whilst the numbers are incredibly low now it's still problematic.
The Lancet was responsible for what has been described as the most damaging medical hoax of the 20th century.A Lancet link, thanks. It's nice to have real scientific research to back these things up.![]()
in 1997, prominent medical journal The Lancet published research claiming to have found a link between the measles vaccine and autism. As a result, in following years the parents of over a million British children decided not to vaccinate their kids. The research has since been thoroughly debunked, but the number of measles cases has skyrocketed, from just several dozen a year in 1997 to over 2,000 cases in 2011. Similar outbreaks have occurred throughout the United States, involving both measles and whooping cough, with doctors and officials blaming low rates of vaccination.[/QUOTThe Lancet is one of the most respected medical journals out there, certainly not 'lazy journalism'.
The Lancet was responsible for what has been described as the most damaging medical hoax of the 20th century.
Yeah, that article was retracted. That is how a scientific article is 'debunked'.Sorry who do you think has debunked a Lancet article? In scientific circles that means the paper has been withdrawn.