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

johnburgin at worldnet.att.net johnburgin at worldnet.att.net
Wed Nov 4 17:29:25 EST 1998

On 4 Nov 1998 20:55:01 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
Hogan) wrote:

>In article <363f98b9.88372784 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>On 2 Nov 1998 19:37:52 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>>Hogan) wrote:
>>>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?  
>>>>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.
>>Can't you just agree to a one on one debate with someone like Rasnick
>>or Duesberg that will cut your balls off?jb
>Steve Harris, Bob Holzman, George Carter and I have all agreed to debate 
>Duesberg, making the offers over a five-six year period. Nobody 
>has shown up.
It's one thing to "agree" amongst yourselves, it's quite another to
make the offer in front of the scientific community.  You guys(except
George) are pathetic.jb

More information about the Immuno mailing list