And
> The little data we have suggest the opposite. One preprint study found that after 30 days the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines no longer had any statistically significant positive effect against Omicron infection, and after 90 days, their effect went negative—i.e., vaccinated people were more susceptible to Omicron infection.
That's the most relevant quote from the article. The study mentioned is here [0].
Fwiw, one of the authors discovered HIV[1], so they presumably know what they're talking about.
[0] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.20.21267966v...
[1] The end of the article mentions "Dr. Montagnier was a winner of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for discovering the human immunodeficiency virus."
Edit: For the record, I'm most definitely not anti-vax, just summarizing the article as best I could. Thanks to everyone who dig deeper than I did.
"Our study contributes to emerging evidence that BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 primary vaccine protection against Omicron decreases quickly over time with booster vaccination offering a significant increase in protection.
In light of the exponential rise in Omicron cases, these findings highlight the need for massive rollout of vaccinations and booster vaccinations."
Compare this to the suggestion of WSJ's word choice of "obsolete"
] During the COVID-19 pandemic, Montagnier was criticised for using his Nobel prize status to "spread dangerous health messages outside his field of knowledge"[6] for promoting the conspiracy theory that SARS-CoV-2 was deliberately created in a laboratory. Such a claim has been refuted by other virologists.[7][8][9][10]
Of course there's no reason to trust Wikipedia. My point is to challenge the idea that because someone got a Nobel Prize on one topic, that makes them a credible source on even related topics.
RationalWiki has a much lower threshold than Wikipedia and at https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nobel_disease writes of Montagnier support for "[h]omeopathy, water memory, autism quackery, AIDS cured by nutrition and vaccine hysteria", linking to https://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/01/14/the-nobel-dise... for support.
It was easy to find L Montagnier et al 2011 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.306 012007, "DNA waves and water" https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/306/1/0... which, if true, would indeed overthrow science, and deserve another Nobel Prize.
Yet it's almost only cited by homeopaths, and more broadly "alt. medicine" sources. The setup doesn't look complicated, so should be easily reproducible. Almost as if it wasn't correct - just like we would expect.
This f*** again. That is all I need to know about that article. He popped up at the start of the pandemic claiming it was a bioweapon based on HIV. Because of course he would.
He is also in support of "the memory of water" and "hexagonal water" and other homeopathic related bullshit.
A prime example of someone suffering from Nobelitis. F** this guy. Please do not give this grifter any more attention than he already has. He may have made important discoveries a long time ago, but is completely divorced from reality today.
This is one of the people on a growing list of people with whom any association leads to instant discrediting.
The argument that forcing people to care for themselves is good would use the severity reduction as a point. But that is not presently the point.
why are people more interested in the authors’ biographies than the their substantive arguments?
This looks like idea laundering.
You should know better than blindly trust wikipedia. It's written by humans, too, who are not devoid of bias.
You make it sound like there’s a consensus here, but I don’t think that’s actually the case—at least not anymore, if it was true before.
like Peter Daszak, Shi Zhengli, and Fauci
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/10/nih-admits-funding-r...
You mean the Lancet Hoax?
This discredits WSJ Oppinon as a valid source of information. If as a journalism agency you do not bother to ban obvious quacks, you do not deserve to be listened to.
cft (who, like us all, is not devoid of bias) linked to Wikipedia as support for the importance of this letter. I think it's only fair to examine that page to check if that support is appropriate.