NATURAL VS V INDUCED IMMUNITY, page-16

It is a normal part of scientific research for papers to be peer reviewed. Peer review can identify biases, faulty analysis and inappropriate conclusions. The authors of this particular paper are credible and it would be expected that the findings standouts to peer review.

The findings themselves are not necessarily unexpected; immunity from having a disease is often higher than that from vaccination. It should be noted though that to have natural immunity, you do not magically acquire this, you would have to have first survived COVID infection and of course many die or have complications.

What else does research by credible scientists tell us?

1. For those previously infected by Covid, subsequent vaccination halves the risk of reinfection compared to those who do not get vaccinated after infection. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm7032e1_w

2. Vaccination provides a massive reduction in the risk of infection, hospitalisation and death compared to no vaccination.

So you have found a study that supports your belief and you promote it, but you ignore all the other research that finds that the vaccines are safe and effective. That’s anti-vaxxer ideology not science.