"AIDS Treatment News" online * New Issue #302 (searchable/indexed)

Carlton Hogan carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu
Mon Nov 2 14:37:52 EST 1998


In article <36367faa.99068159 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
 <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Oct 1998 17:11:36 -0700, marnix at u.washington.edu (Marnix L.
>Bosch) wrote:
>
>>In article <36364960.85168152 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>>johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>
>>> On 27 Oct 1998 17:49:13 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>>> Hogan) wrote:
>>> 
>>> >
>>> >You are a silly and amazingly ignorant man. In the below you state:
>>> >
>>> >">If, assuming that you are correct, which I don't believe, that
>>> >>antibodies do "not" always mean that you have conquered infection, as
>>> >>I stated before, how can you arbitrarily recommend using them to
>>> >>signify protection one time(as with prophylactic vaccination against
>>> >>Hepatitis B and not with HIV?  What, please tell me, would an
>>> >>individual "vaccinated" against HIV present as proof of immunization?
>>> >>He would be HIV + of course!  Again, are these "non-neutralizing"
>>> >>antibodies in the latter case or neutralizing antibodies in the first
>>> >>case?"
>>> >
>>> >Your stupidity is amazing. I never have said that I "reccomend using them
>>> >to signify protection". 
>>> I never said that YOU did.  You don't treat patients, remember?
>>> Not only are you a pompous ass, you're a defensive pompous ass.  Talk
>>> to me, us, about "enhancing" antibodies.  A few of my other ignorant
>>> medical colleagues, including 2 board certified medical pathologist
>>> and a molecular biologist are laughing their asses off at your
>>> bullshit.  Do you really believe that because you say something in
>>> scientific jargon that people believe it?  If they can't understand
>>> what you are saying, and they don't know who you are, why should they
>>> believe you?  Come on, talk to us all, o.k., just me about "enhancing"
>>> antibodies.  Make your case.  No references to medline searches.  They
>>> don't bring up the term. 
>>
>>PubMed search: enhancing antibodies: 421 hits; enhancing antibodies AND
>>HIV: 43 hits. 
>>
>>> MY stupidity is amazing?  
>>
>>Indeed
>Give us a few sites to get started, big boy. jb

Can't you just be a man, and admit you are wrong? Such realistic humility
is the first step to learning.

Carlton



More information about the Immuno mailing list