When you get to "reported cases of" anecdotes that the researchers were specifically targeting to find you might want to consider the reduction factors involved. Or even the potential for selecting a biased dataset based on false positives.

Correct interpretation of research is more important than finding this or that paper. Kentucky study was not about antibody response so I'm not sure how you are using that to back up your assertion. Instead it was a theoretically more direct look in to patient outcomes, however follow own studies over larger populations seem to be in tension with the Kentucky result.