Nothing I said contradicts the WHO.
> Don't you think that if this was a foregone conclusion, we'd be able to demonstrate that?
I'm sorry, do we need to re-prove how the immune system works? Why re-demonstrate the utterly obvious?
> Isn't it odd, that with people having been infected and recovered months ago, that no one is saying how long the antibodies persist?
No, because it hasn't been long enough. I'm confident that research is under way.
But an immune response from an actual virus should last for at least a few years. There are situations where you can get reinfected later in life if you're not exposed or given booster shots (likes Shingles).
Is there evidences that our adaptive immune system only generates short lived antibodies, and for what families of viruses?
It's like saying "I find it very strange no scientists came out on record this week with a study showing water remains wet -- does it?! How can we tell if we don't check again."
Lack of proof of an affirmative is not proof of a negative, and especially not when plenty of other evidence points in the direction of the affirmative (again, not conclusively).
In science, it's incumbent on those making the claim to provide studies and proof. That means you...
And to say that this is unsupported, unsubstantiated is ridiculous, and you know it. It's straight from the WHO's mouth.