Well beaverfury, there would be an advantage to us. However I can imagine what they would say: "Stop poking me!" We would really need to track the recovery over time for maximum information. To do that we would need a large long term study of patients over years and decades. There is not much effort at that - no money for it as far as I am aware. Testing a fully recovered patient might not tell us anything. If they come up normal, would it be because they got better or because they were still testing the wrong thing? Testing almost recovered patients would make things difficult. The problems are likely to be less detectable. Personally I would like to see more studies of the very severe and severe patients. The sicker a person is, the easier it should be to find something wrong. Testing mildly sick patients who can travel distances regularly to get to the study may actually be making things much harder in terms of testing - their problems might be less obvious. Bye, Alex PS On the other hand doing genetic comparison testing between recovered and nonrecovered patients might tell us about genetic bias to recovery.