So if the research article does not make blanket statements about vaccination, why is that you think it is appropriate to cite an article that makes a number of blanket statement, rather than using the more neutrally toned articles that more accurately describe the findings of the research?
I don't think it is about the efficiency of vaccinations and the article also does not make a blanket statement (in fact the article suggests that further research is needed for other diseases, in particular those that effect the central nervous system).
I believe what the research is saying is that for some viruses,
vaccinationsantibodies are not a necessity as opposed to what has commonly been believed.
So yes, in reality, the doctors are suggesting that their research has led them to believe that vaccination (or 'antibodies') for certain viruses are not required.
Sure, but until it is demonstrated that the innate immune system alone is sufficient to deal with the infection, and that the presence of antibody (natural, passively transfered, or induced by vaccines) doesn't not help the body clear the infection, claiming that the research has any affect on the practice of vaccination is premature. It is erroneous to equate the conclusion of "antibodies are not necessary" to "antibody being useless".
After reading the actual research, do you agree that the article in your original post jumped to conclusions not supported by the research?