jslove

First, I wrote this (before using forum):

patchythepirate is an appropriate name for a troll.  Here are two examples:

"...they don't accommodate for natural immunity, which is *superior* to the vaccine 'immunity'"

We do not know how to detect superior natural immunity.  Some of us may indeed be naturally immune, but we won't know about that for years.  If patchytheprirate means innate immunity, the first line of defense, that is clearly not superior, or none of us would get sick.  If the writer means acquired immunity from having had an infection, that's still not quite right.  In infection provides some immunity, vaccination is better, and the combination of having had an infection and then been vaccinated appears to be the best.  There are multiple sources for this, but I recommend the podcast, "This Week in Virology".  Chances are there are many relevant links in the notes for some of the episodes.  I'd rather listen to experts; they are available there.  "Natural immunity" in this context is sleight-of-hand; meaningless as used.

"gene modifying agents".

The vaccines are different, but we know that the ones authorized (not yet licensed) in the USA do not modify the DNA of a vaccinated person.  That is, they do not insert, delete, or change the DNA base pairs.  We may someday discover that changes in gene expression occur, but those are still the genes the cell started with, given that mutations in cell reproduction do occur, some of which lead to cancer.  How gene expression changes is another topic, but it's somewhat like changes in the state of a computer program, and expected and desirable in many contexts.  Without it, there would not be different types of cells in our bodies.

Not clear how valid the passports are or how long they should last, but manipulation via false statements is perfectly evident in their post here.
----
But then we have their response, quoted above.  It's sort of impressive in a "dropping technical terms suggests you know what you are talking about" kind of way.  So to falsify a few of the claims:

The reinfection rate for vaccinated persons is lower than for unvaccinated persons.  That's the case for vaccination.  The reinfection rate for persons who had the disease versus the reinfection rate for vaccinated persons is less analyzed, but we know there are reinfections and "breakthrough" infections among the vaccinated.  We know that the post-vaccine infections are milder and hospitalization and/or death is very unlikely; we have no such observation for post-infection reinfection.  I regard the statement that post-vaccination infections are have a much higher rate than post-infection reinfection as misleading and probably false.

Post-vaccination reinfection is really a red herring; being vaccinated is not being infected, the writer refers to people vaccinated and infected twice, which is a very small group indeed, and unlikely to be able to produce a statistically significant high rate.  These are people whose immune systems are not working well enough to protect them; they are not typical.

This is a serious disease.  You don't want to have an infection at all.  Having an infection followed by vaccination produces far more antibodies than either alone; this has been measured.  We don't know whether antibodies or T-cells are more important, but both are stimulated by vaccination.  An immunoassay can distinguish people infected from people merely vaccinated because only people previously infected have antibodies for the non-spike parts of the virus, which is useful, but may not be relevant to effective immune response.

Also, some symptoms of long covid have been reported to be reduced by post-infection vaccination, especially two shots.  Those reports are anecdotes, not data, but interesting and will likely result in data collection later as part of understanding long covid better.  It's too soon for that now, but better understanding could be good news for sufferers from other diseases with long post-infection sequelae.