> Where specifically in the article do you believe that the publications are wrongly interpreted?
"Growing evidence also suggests that repeated vaccinations may make people more susceptible to XBB and could be fueling the virus’s rapid evolution."
"Experts nevertheless claim that boosters improve protection against XBB. That’s disinformation, to use their favored term." (Hilariously, her assertion that this is disinformation is directly contradicted by the previous sentence she herself wrote: "A bivalent booster only slightly increased antibodies against XBB.")
"But experts refuse to concede that boosters have yielded diminishing benefits and may even have made individuals and the population as a whole more vulnerable to new variants like XBB." A competent journalist would have asked the experts why.
"The Biden administration’s monomaniacal focus on vaccines over new treatments has left the highest-risk Americans more vulnerable to new variants. Why doesn’t that seem to worry the experts?" Once again, she clearly states that she knows that the experts have interpreted the data differently. I don't know how you could have asked me an easier question.
> Not to mention the fact that the vaccines can't be reducing the number of mutations since they aren't preventing infections.
The data show that not only are they vaccines reducing the number of infections, but they are reducing the lengths of infections that do occur, reducing the number of copies made and thereby reducing the number of mutations.
"Growing evidence also suggests that repeated vaccinations may make people more susceptible to XBB and could be fueling the virus’s rapid evolution."
"Experts nevertheless claim that boosters improve protection against XBB. That’s disinformation, to use their favored term." (Hilariously, her assertion that this is disinformation is directly contradicted by the previous sentence she herself wrote: "A bivalent booster only slightly increased antibodies against XBB.")
"But experts refuse to concede that boosters have yielded diminishing benefits and may even have made individuals and the population as a whole more vulnerable to new variants like XBB." A competent journalist would have asked the experts why.
"The Biden administration’s monomaniacal focus on vaccines over new treatments has left the highest-risk Americans more vulnerable to new variants. Why doesn’t that seem to worry the experts?" Once again, she clearly states that she knows that the experts have interpreted the data differently. I don't know how you could have asked me an easier question.
> Not to mention the fact that the vaccines can't be reducing the number of mutations since they aren't preventing infections.
The data show that not only are they vaccines reducing the number of infections, but they are reducing the lengths of infections that do occur, reducing the number of copies made and thereby reducing the number of mutations.
reply