"AIDS Treatment News" online * New Issue #302 (searchable/indexed)
carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu
Mon Nov 2 15:36:17 EST 1998
In article <363a015d.328914173 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
<johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Oct 1998 09:58:55 -0700, marnix at u.washington.edu (Marnix L.
>>In article <363928d8.273477005 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>>johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Oct 1998 16:46:20 -0700, marnix at u.washington.edu (Marnix L.
>>> Bosch) wrote:
>>> >The point you were trying to make was that presence of antibodies
>>> >signified protection. You were shown to be wrong. Anything else you can't
>>> >explain ?
>>> Marnix, Marnix, Marnix. What have I been shown wrong for?
>I repeat, where have I been wrong? I said that you can't have it both
>ways. You can't use the immunity defense when things work and forget
>about it when things don't. I repeat, what will the HIV serologic
>status be for a person "immunized" against "a" strain of HIV?
I really don't have the time for this crap anymore. I just keep
correcting you so that, god forbid, some vulnerable, just-tested-
positive person doesn't stumble in to this group and hear all these
I will make this brief:
1.Antibodies are to antigen, not to whole microorganisms. There is not
"a" HIVantibody, but rather Abs to gp120, gp41, p24, p17 etc. etc.
2. Abs are not the be-all and end-all of the immune system - in the case
of HIV (and most other obligate intercellulars) cell mediated
immunity is much more critical.
3. Nobody has ever been immunized with "a" strain of HIV. Vaccines
use recombinantly created antigen, or stripped down denatured HIV,
both with a variety of adjuvants. Nobody has ever been inoculated
with whole HIV (living or dead) as the risk is simply too high.
Take your meds.
More information about the Immuno