• With due respect to the authors- its a bit of a pointless study.
    We have evidence that antibody titres reduce over time [for a generic infection]. This study looked at- essentially- serum antibody levels, over time, and showed that yes- less antibodies= less binding.

    It tells us nothing.

    This is illustrative of the shit, piss-poor excuse for science that has led us thus far.

    • Sorry the science is fine, it follows the appropriate method, etc, etc. But the aim, the hypothesis, and outcomes are pointless. Easy pickings for paper publications, not targeted or forward-thinking. There has been some terrible science, but thats by-the-by.

    What it does indicate, is that the antibody tests we were so excited about, are probably even more fucking pointless than originally thought by RCPATH.

  • and showed that yes- less antibodies= less binding.

    It tells us nothing.

    This doesn't tell us that immunity works in a different way than expected?

    Easy pickings for paper publications

    gotta get the numbers up I guess. Thanks for your response.

About

Avatar for deleted @deleted started