I've signed each of several comments separately, to keep the
dialogue straight.
F. LeFever
In <363f96f6.87921338 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>
johnburgin at worldnet.att.net writes:
>>- - - - - - - -(snip) - - - - - - - - - - - -
>I assure you, if I thought, for a moment, that there was any validity
>in the "research" that you do or the argument that you have, I would
>have the time, intellect and resources to understand. But,
>your belief is motivated by money and career advancement.
>
I have absolutely no career involvement with AIDS, neither on a
clinical nor on a research level. My "avocational" reading outside
my own "career" areas leads me to accept the HIV/AIDS connection,
with of course the understanding that there are likely genetic and
environmental.life history influences on the course of the disease.
Your numerous errors and failure to acknowledge correction, your
citing smart friends who save you the trouble of reading
"unimportant" stuff (e.g. pathologists who did not encounter
questions about enhancing antibodies on their board exams), etc.,
do not encourage confidence in your ability or willingness to
understand.
F. LeFever
-- - - - - - -(snip) - - - - - - - - - - -
>1)There is no relevance in the argument that you seem to want to
>pursue about antibodies producing a life long immunity to disease.
Nobody posting to this thread believes this nor has anybody said
so.
F. LeFever
- - - - - - - - (snip) - - - - - - - - - - - - -
However, I stand by my statement, there must be
>immunity with antibody formation, at least in the immediate(I consider
>years) term.
Your repeated refusal to acknowledge the many examples given
to you showing that antibody formation does NOT necessarily
confer protection, examples of OTHER diseases, is blatant
intellectual dishonesty. It is misleading to the naive soul
reading the discussion only from this point on, not realizing
that your assertion has been challenged; with possible
serious consequences to that person and his/her sex partners.
I myself offered one counter example from my own experience:
h. pylori antibodies do not confer immunity from gastric
ulcer...
F. LeFever
- - - - - - - - - (snip) -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -(snip) - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Just in case a new reader thinks I am unfair in my assertion
that he defers responsibility to others and is not willing or
able to read and evaluate the scientific literature himself, v,
infra:
> There are some things that I trust to others, information
>on enhancing antibodies from people that I respect would be in line
>If pathologists don't use them or haven't heard of them, why in the
>crap should I worry about it?
This is the guy with "time, intellect and resources tto
understand"??
F. LeFever
- - - - - - - - -(snip) - - - - - - - - - -
For benefit of new readers, prior reply from another
discussant objecting to his "strawman" cum "Big Lie"
distortion of the antibody/protection issue:
>>Your stupidity is amazing. I never have said that I "reccomend using
them
>>to signify protection". That is YOUR claim. In fact, a healthy CTL
>>response is probably necessary to counter HIV. Antibodies are clearly
>>not protective (with the possible exception of anti-p24), as one of
>>the hallmarks of HIV infection is hypergammaglobulinemia.
>>>>Once again: antibodies, especially in the case of viruses DO NOT mean
>>you have conquered infection. Several conditions spring immediately
to
>>mind: herpes viruses, hepatitis, syphilis.
>>>>I no longer have time for your inane ignorance. I will correct you on
>>misstatements of fact, but in consideration for others trying to use
>>Usenet in a productive way so I will not keep this mind-bendingly
dumb
>>threads going.
>>>>Carlton
- - - - - - - - - (snip) - - - - - - - -
F. LeFever
