Thread by @fitterhappierAJ

Since 2020 I have claimed that sars cov 2 infection would create harmed t cell memory based on phenotypes after infection

It is now proven

Even so, I have several Professors who pretend to not understand or do not understand how, nipping at my heels

https://twitter.com/KasperKepp/status/1710021001126334804

I assume they behave this way because they are tenured & very mad, so they feel they can put their ignorance and vitriol on display wantonly

Bertoletti even made a nod to me in a publication, which the journal maintains references me in no way whatsoever

https://twitter.com/Anto_Berto/status/1708377434150871320

For their benefit, I will list the publications that prove my thesis correct:

The first is how T cell responses derived from vaccination are superior to those derived from infection. T cell functions after infection were harmed. The publication is below:

https://twitter.com/fitterhappierAJ/status/1637563183350030341

The second proof is how people who were infected risked reinfection shortly afterward. That publication is here:

https://twitter.com/fitterhappierAJ/status/1694210288159953330

This is consistent with the third publication, which shows the dampened CD8 T cell responses following infection. That publication is here:

https://twitter.com/fitterhappierAJ/status/1536850268763086849

To address Kasper's category error: faster pcr negativity of a sars cov 2 infection upon reinfection is not proof that T cells or immunity have not been harmed.

Antibodies and b cell memory are largely contributing to clearance as well

You can look at t cells directly

The paper from the Danish Government is extremely poor and political

It claims people infected with cov 2 have less chance of infections with other illnesses, despite confessing how this is unexpected given derangements in the immune system following infection

It also fails to repeat observed increases in other infections like tonsillitis after sars cov 2, which is another weakness this paper acknowledges

It is very poorly designed

In fact, we know a common post-viral complication is a bacterial pneumonia

The study could not reveal this, and in fact showed the opposite; that sars cov 2 protects

How could any conclusions be reliably drawn from the paper? It is poor science on parade.

It is not the only poorly designed paper

Some epidemiology studies have been designed where they sample a population biased by some metric, including age or working status

They are massaging the epidemiology