Such an awful and biased article, but unsurprising since the competing interest statement shows that one of the researchers has received consultancy fees from Sanofi Pasteur, Lumen, Novavax, and Merck for work unrelated to this report.

Article highlights that fail to address the positives of the alternatives:
1. "SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines elicit higher levels of antibodies compared to SARS-CoV-2 infections"

That's only true when you compare spike protein antibodies. How this is worded, though, is false. Spike proteins elicited by prior infection only account for a fraction (~15%) of the variety of antibodies elicited overall. This does not account for all the other types of antibodies elicited for the E, M, or, N proteins, ORF's, or NSP's.

2. "The first dose of an mRNA vaccine generates both S1 and S2 responses while the second dose boosts primarily S1-specific antibodies"

The S1 domain is where the majority of mutations occur, so why is this a good thing?

3. "SARS-CoV-2 infections, but not mRNA vaccinations, elicit high levels of antibodies that bind strongly to seasonal coronaviruses but weakly to SARS-CoV-2".

Again, they are only assessing the infection elicited antibodies for the spike protein and not comparing all the other antibodies.

Articles like this contribute to misinformation and mistrust because they are intentionally dishonest. Vaccine development and testing traditionally uses antibody responses to infection as the baseline to compare antibodies elicited by the vaccine. This switch to using the vaccine as a baseline is going to shoot us in the foot. There are more vaccine breakthrough cases in Michigan than there are confirmed reinfection cases in the world. Properly recognizing prior infection immunity is what will get us out of this mess.