In fact, the very article we are commenting on has quotes from medical experts which contradict its findings.
I think it would be more honest to add a qualifier to your repeated claims. As in, "it hasn't been collaborated yet, but there is a promising study suggesting that....."
Stating it as fact, so vehemently, so frequently, is very misleading. What if that one study is found to be faulty?
>It's impossible for you to have counted the # of times I made this claim in my comment history without noticing the links.
I searched the (first page) comments for this story using the phrase "superior immunity". You mentioned this "fact" 7 times without providing the source (or any sort of qualifier as mentioned above). I do see now (after searching your name) that you have indeed provided a link to the source numerous times under other comments so it seems obvious that this wasn't intentional or malicious. Apologies for that.
FWIW, I do hope this study ends up being proven correct. But in the mean time, I highly encourage you to be more honest in how you cite it.
Example:
https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on...
The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a “Don’t try this at home” label.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-27/previous-...
# of Americans who had covid:
https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news...
A new study published in the journal Nature estimates that 103 million Americans, or 31 percent of the U.S. population, had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 by the end of 2020.
It's impossible for you to have counted the # of times I made this claim in my comment history without noticing the links. Please be sure you're trying to see the sources when I provide them in parent comments.