Dangerous and should be ignored for a public forum.

My AI cannot find anything on this it complained not having a DOI attached to these breakthroughs either.

So this is how anti-vaxxer fan-fiction looks like.

Can you give me a short version and say if anyone can fly or not?

Cool.
When do we get superhuman durability to go with our superhuman strength, reaction speed and cognition?

Originally posted by Rumpelcrutchskin:

So this is how anti-vaxxer fan-fiction looks like.

Pretty much. I live in Iowa, which was the covid hotspot of the world at one point. We had a Trump supporter (electrician / school bus driver) loved by the small town community named Craig Milligan spew a bunch of anti-vax ♥♥♥♥ like this and died the same year. It seems like the only people admitting he died of covid are his family, whilst everyone else in the community still chalks it up to the "they're throwing covid on any death to make it seem like a problem" conspiracy.

Anti-vaxxers are much dumber than we give them credit for.

People who refuse polio vaccines sometimes become world champion wheelchair athletes.

Originally posted by Corvus XIII:

Dangerous and should be ignored for a public forum.

My AI cannot find anything on this it complained not having a DOI attached to these breakthroughs either.

For real...this guy needs to know how to use APA7th edition references. I don't think these studies exist

Just one study, and as anyone worth their salt in research will tell you....correlation does not equal causation. This was one study with a relatively small population. Here are some other inconsistencies for your enjoyment:

The study relies on a cohort of 242 unvaccinated adults, but without details on the demographic diversity of the sample, it is difficult to assess whether the findings are generalizable across different populations. The control group consists of 188 vaccinated individuals, which presents a limitation. Since vaccinations are associated with different immune responses, the lack of a non-infected, similarly unvaccinated control group makes it challenging to determine if the observed effects are due solely to natural infection or inherent differences between the two groups.

While the study reports correlations between repeat infections and various improvements in health parameters, it does not establish a direct causal relationship. Other external factors or lifestyle changes might contribute to these improvements in cognitive function and physical resilience. Furthermore, the study does not account for the severity of the infections experienced by participants, which can vary widely and impact recovery trajectories. Without clarification on whether the infections were mild, moderate, or severe, the results may be skewed.

The focus on improvements following infections overlooks potential long-term health issues or complications that could arise from repeated infections, providing an incomplete picture of the effects of frequent reinfection. The methods used for cognitive testing should have thorough validation to ensure that they accurately measure improvements in cognitive functions instead of reflecting practice effects.

There is also a possibility of selection bias because the cohort of unvaccinated adults might consist of individuals with particular beliefs or health profiles that could influence their immune response or resilience. Lastly, although the conclusion suggests cumulative immunological and systemic adaptations, the study does not provide mechanistic data to support this, leaving a gap in understanding how these adaptations occur. These points highlight critical areas for further investigation and indicate the need for additional research to validate the findings while addressing potential confounding factors.

.....but I would be interested in reading that study. Got a doi for us?

Originally posted by Eskimofo:

Just one study, and as anyone worth their salt in research will tell you....correlation does not equal causation. This was one study with a relatively small population. Here are some other inconsistencies for your enjoyment:

The study relies on a cohort of 242 unvaccinated adults, but without details on the demographic diversity of the sample, it is difficult to assess whether the findings are generalizable across different populations.

That seems like you are being racist.

Originally posted by Eskimofo:

The control group consists of 188 vaccinated individuals, which presents a limitation.

You don't seem to care about their race.

Originally posted by Eskimofo:

Since vaccinations are associated with different immune responses, the lack of a non-infected, similarly unvaccinated control group makes it challenging to determine if the observed effects are due solely to natural infection or inherent differences between the two groups.

That is ridiculous. The control group is the vaccinated and the un-vaxxed are the test. That is the scientific method.

You are trying to use big words and run-on sentences to confuse people. That doesn't work on people that have taken quite a few science classes.

Originally posted by Eskimofo:

While the study reports correlations between repeat infections and various improvements in health parameters, it does not establish a direct causal relationship. Other external factors or lifestyle changes might contribute to these improvements in cognitive function and physical resilience. Furthermore, the study does not account for the severity of the infections experienced by participants, which can vary widely and impact recovery trajectories. Without clarification on whether the infections were mild, moderate, or severe, the results may be skewed.

All assumptions. Basically "whataboutism".

Are cigarettes safe? There was a lady that lived to around 100 years. She smoked every day. Should we throw out every study that shows otherwise? Simply because there are anomalies? Because that wouldn't be scientific at all.

Originally posted by Eskimofo:

The focus on improvements following infections overlooks potential long-term health issues or complications that could arise from repeated infections,

I'm just gonna stop here. As your entire post annoys me.

I never took the Covid vaccine. I'm not against vaccines. I'm not dead. I got sick. I got better. I wore the mask. There are no "long-term health issues or complications". There were no "repeat infections".

Vaccines for polio, rabies, measles, and other things are around 99.9% effective. Flu vaccines? around 60% effective. (Some studies indicate far less.)

Originally posted by Jackie Daytona:

Originally posted by Eskimofo:

Just one study, and as anyone worth their salt in research will tell you....correlation does not equal causation. This was one study with a relatively small population. Here are some other inconsistencies for your enjoyment:

The study relies on a cohort of 242 unvaccinated adults, but without details on the demographic diversity of the sample, it is difficult to assess whether the findings are generalizable across different populations.

That seems like you are being racist.

Originally posted by Eskimofo:

The control group consists of 188 vaccinated individuals, which presents a limitation.

You don't seem to care about their race.

Originally posted by Eskimofo:

Since vaccinations are associated with different immune responses, the lack of a non-infected, similarly unvaccinated control group makes it challenging to determine if the observed effects are due solely to natural infection or inherent differences between the two groups.

That is ridiculous. The control group is the vaccinated and the un-vaxxed are the test. That is the scientific method.

You are trying to use big words and run-on sentences to confuse people. That doesn't work on people that have taken quite a few science classes.

Originally posted by Eskimofo:

While the study reports correlations between repeat infections and various improvements in health parameters, it does not establish a direct causal relationship. Other external factors or lifestyle changes might contribute to these improvements in cognitive function and physical resilience. Furthermore, the study does not account for the severity of the infections experienced by participants, which can vary widely and impact recovery trajectories. Without clarification on whether the infections were mild, moderate, or severe, the results may be skewed.

All assumptions. Basically "whataboutism".

Are cigarettes safe? There was a lady that lived to around 100 years. She smoked every day. Should we throw out every study that shows otherwise? Simply because there are anomalies? Because that wouldn't be scientific at all.

Originally posted by Eskimofo:

The focus on improvements following infections overlooks potential long-term health issues or complications that could arise from repeated infections,

I'm just gonna stop here. As your entire post annoys me.

I never took the Covid vaccine. I'm not against vaccines. I'm not dead. I got sick. I got better. I wore the mask. There are no "long-term health issues or complications". There were no "repeat infections".

Vaccines for polio, rabies, measles, and other things are around 99.9% effective. Flu vaccines? around 60% effective. (Some studies indicate far less.)

Take it easy there buddy.

I can feel it

I don't need anymore super powers.

Originally posted by Jackie Daytona:

Originally posted by Eskimofo:

Just one study, and as anyone worth their salt in research will tell you....correlation does not equal causation. This was one study with a relatively small population. Here are some other inconsistencies for your enjoyment:

The study relies on a cohort of 242 unvaccinated adults, but without details on the demographic diversity of the sample, it is difficult to assess whether the findings are generalizable across different populations.

That seems like you are being racist.

Originally posted by Eskimofo:

The control group consists of 188 vaccinated individuals, which presents a limitation.

You don't seem to care about their race.

Originally posted by Eskimofo:

Since vaccinations are associated with different immune responses, the lack of a non-infected, similarly unvaccinated control group makes it challenging to determine if the observed effects are due solely to natural infection or inherent differences between the two groups.

That is ridiculous. The control group is the vaccinated and the un-vaxxed are the test. That is the scientific method.

You are trying to use big words and run-on sentences to confuse people. That doesn't work on people that have taken quite a few science classes.

Originally posted by Eskimofo:

While the study reports correlations between repeat infections and various improvements in health parameters, it does not establish a direct causal relationship. Other external factors or lifestyle changes might contribute to these improvements in cognitive function and physical resilience. Furthermore, the study does not account for the severity of the infections experienced by participants, which can vary widely and impact recovery trajectories. Without clarification on whether the infections were mild, moderate, or severe, the results may be skewed.

All assumptions. Basically "whataboutism".

Are cigarettes safe? There was a lady that lived to around 100 years. She smoked every day. Should we throw out every study that shows otherwise? Simply because there are anomalies? Because that wouldn't be scientific at all.

Originally posted by Eskimofo:

The focus on improvements following infections overlooks potential long-term health issues or complications that could arise from repeated infections,

I'm just gonna stop here. As your entire post annoys me.

I never took the Covid vaccine. I'm not against vaccines. I'm not dead. I got sick. I got better. I wore the mask. There are no "long-term health issues or complications". There were no "repeat infections".

Vaccines for polio, rabies, measles, and other things are around 99.9% effective. Flu vaccines? around 60% effective. (Some studies indicate far less.)

Lol. My career is literally in psychological research. I only use the terminology I use with my colleagues. Sorry if it confuses you.

It seems like you are trying to attack my character rather than my statements poking all sorts of holes in your study. I think there is an logical fallacy for that....

So, what's your career in again?

You always had them, king.

Originally posted by Eskimofo:

Originally posted by Jackie Daytona:

That seems like you are being racist.

You don't seem to care about their race.

That is ridiculous. The control group is the vaccinated and the un-vaxxed are the test. That is the scientific method.

You are trying to use big words and run-on sentences to confuse people. That doesn't work on people that have taken quite a few science classes.

All assumptions. Basically "whataboutism".

Are cigarettes safe? There was a lady that lived to around 100 years. She smoked every day. Should we throw out every study that shows otherwise? Simply because there are anomalies? Because that wouldn't be scientific at all.

I'm just gonna stop here. As your entire post annoys me.

I never took the Covid vaccine. I'm not against vaccines. I'm not dead. I got sick. I got better. I wore the mask. There are no "long-term health issues or complications". There were no "repeat infections".

Vaccines for polio, rabies, measles, and other things are around 99.9% effective. Flu vaccines? around 60% effective. (Some studies indicate far less.)

Lol. My career is literally in psychological research. I only use the terminology I use with my colleagues. Sorry if it confuses you.

It seems like you are trying to attack my character rather than my statements poking all sorts of holes in your study. I think there is an logical fallacy for that....

So, what's your career in again?

He said his job was stacking shelves lmao