The study you cited sounds very promising but is far from definitive evidence. It hasn't been published. Nor peer-reviewed, nor have its findings been collaborated by other studies.

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.