To Donald.\n\n10 minutes in Pubmed suffices. All scientists know the relevant key words.\n\nThe claim is that the finding is new, which it is not.\n\nReinventing the wheel is an expensive time-waster. By ignoring medical history, scientists can't accurately refine work by exploring known anomalies, or thinking through previous data, and with innovative lateral thinking, proposing and testing new immunological pathways, to expand horizons of knowledge.\n\nThis study is a classic example of such shortcomings.\n\nThis study doesn't add much at all to previous information at the end of a mouse, let alone indepth reading.\n\nThis topic is crucial in the long run, because so often an immunologist will say that "because there are detectable antibodies, a person is susceptible to disease."\n\nYet there is no test for anamnestic responses ( **except say, a 'rechallenge', and a blood test, whereby you say, "Oh, see?? I had IMMUNITY after all!!! ** ). So the public assumes that immunity blood tests encompass all known parameters, when they are only the tip of the iceberg.\n\nFor all the years that memory immunity has been studied to try to work it out, you'd think that there would have been a lot more movement on the topic. You'd even think that perhaps someone would come up with a valid, non-invasive test for it!\n\nHowever, it could be said that so long as ignorance is bliss, the blind can continue to lead the blind.