What is the evidence you see that these particular authors had preferred this particular outcome?
Very simple. Study was facilitated by the CDC and/or public health entities who have been recommending that recovered folks vaccinate even before there was any evidence. I've been struggling for months to find any iota of scientific support on the CDC website and there was none. They played their words to make it seem as if it was backed by science while in reality it was nothing more than a theory. They pushed it to the degree that millions of people can now get fired for not following this edict.
Perhaps it's good policy to do blanket rules, but that proves my point that they backed into a result they want publicized.
No, they selected the past two months for sensible reasons. They could wait for more than two months before publishing, but given the situation, everyone is examining preliminary data as it comes out. Limitations (what you call disclaimers) are included in most medical research articles.
I'm in the statistics business and know very well how to make any set of numbers tell the story I want it to. If you pick only certain months of data and have a great explanation why you hid the other ones, I say show me the other months and let me decide.
On the contrary, if Zelenko had offered even one disclaimer he might even be respected.
You agreed above that media twists stories to fit their narrative. The problem with Zelenko was that he didn't fit narrative. I agree that he's an idiot, I'm just pointing out that this data/report can be twisted or spun to whatever outcome you, me, PG, CV, CNN or even CDC fancies. There are far greater idiots who get showered with constant praise since they fit the desired messaging.