Gold Lifetime
- Messages
- 27,346
- Reactions
- 72,818
I don't know where the article is but I do know that prominent immunologists have said that natural immunity can last for decades. So that would seem to indicate that the antibodies produced via the rna treatment are inferior in quality, quantity, the manner in which the body produces them, or in some other way with which I am not familiar.I'm not trying to argue. I'm just asking for an explanation of why he thinks an antibody produced as a result of vaccination would have a shorter half-life than an antibody produced as a result of natural exposure. Why does everything have to be an argument in this forum? Is it to much to ask someone to explain their statements?
It's your body's natural resistance (immune system) that produces the response in both cases. You're not being given artificial antibodies. Only the mode of exposure to the virus, or a piece of the virus, is different.
Trust who or what you like. It's not my business and I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. But when someone makes an unsupported statement of "fact", I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for an explanation.