Wtf? I must be misinterpreting the data, otherwise this article raises VERY disturbing questions, if I have read the summary correctly.<p>Three data points:<p>1. Natural infection efficacy: not studied or stated (why? Study flawed from start, assuming vaccines are always better, no matter what?)<p>2. Natural infection, AND then full vaccine course<p>3. Only fully vaccinated efficacy.<p>It appears that the vaccine is better than natural Immunity AND the vaccine.<p>Which begs the question, how effective is natural infection?<p>Only by answering this question can it be determined if vaccines are destroying natural Immunity, or if natural Immunity is preventing vaccines from working.<p>A VERY inconvenient question indeed. No wonder it wasn't asked.