Most vaccines based on an inactivated virus throughout history have stimulated such a response.
By contrast, the mRNA vaccines induce a far more limited range of responses — only to a specific protein. So the surface area for the virus needs to mutate escape the immune response is far smaller than from natural immunity or “inactivated virus” vaccines such as the ones which eradicated Smallpox, or Salk’s Polivo vaccine.
Why doesn’t this article or many others delve into a distinction between natural immunity / inactivated virus (J&J) immunity and mRNA vaccine induced immunity? It seems like all the reporting is rigged, with almost everyone including scientific journals like Nature seemingly staying away from criticizingmRNA vaccines, and ready to carry water for them even in the absence of evidence in their favor.
With the LARGEST studies out of Israel and UK showing thatnatural immunity is far more robust while vaccine immunity wanes and is more limited against mutations, most articles IGNORE this in their reporting and often even claim the opposite — that you should get vaccined even if you have been immune for a year.
Homeless people and those constantly exposed to low levels of viruses have more robust immune systems than those who were isolated from everything.