Thanks and that's a heck of a curve ball on my view of this study. IIRC it's not the same study I recall written up before peer review and read back in late 2

Thanks and that's a heck of a curve ball on my view of this study. IIRC it's not the same study I recall written up before peer review and read back in late 2020 but it's left me wondering how it could be. Sometimes I don't pay the closest attention for instance the last couple of days I missed the word antibodies meant human derived versions not what an antigen developed to hone in on covid proteins which an elisa test would detect. (ie for covid detection in the wild where there the human population is not significant compared to the host species.) Obviously there's not two studies regarding the lung tissue samples, so that leaves me in a bit of a WTF moment, did I misread whatever I read in 2020 badly, since surely I would have binned it once I saw mention of IgG and IgM. What I recall looking over how they had used elisa not for human antibodies but for antigens to specific protein sequences unique to covid 19. The result was a single set of figures with iirc nothing over 1% until at least early 2020. At the time I thought it a clever means to track the presence of a non infective / benign virus before it reached an infective stage - pre Wuhan and wondered what exotic pets or animals people had unwittingly exposed themselves to - obviously lung tissue is a sponge of sorts. If they were testing for human derived antibodies, IgG and IgM blood samples from blood banks makes more sense. I would now guess the supposed high IgG and IgM detection is probably why WHO ignored this study and or sloppy work on the researchers and labs part.