Mpox, a viral infection, offers longer-lasting protection than its vaccine counterpart, according to a groundbreaking study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases. This revelation challenges the conventional understanding of vaccine efficacy and opens up new avenues for research. But here’s where it gets controversial… While the study suggests that mpox infection provides robust, long-term immunity, the vaccine’s effectiveness wanes over time and may require periodic boosters. So, which approach is more reliable for long-term protection? The answer isn’t straightforward, and it’s a question that demands further investigation. In a related commentary, experts from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai delve deeper into the implications of these findings. They argue that the success of next-generation vaccines against orthopoxviruses, like mpox, hinges on strategic antigen selection. By focusing on proteins associated with long-lasting protection and cross-reactivity, these vaccines could offer more durable immunity. Currently, the FDA-approved JYNNEOS (MVA-BN) mpox/smallpox vaccine is available in the United States. However, the question remains: should we prioritize infection-based immunity or vaccine-induced protection? The debate is far from over, and it’s a topic that invites further discussion and research. What do you think? Share your thoughts in the comments below.