"AIDS Treatment News" (obscuring the point)

F. Frank LeFever flefever at ix.netcom.com
Wed Oct 28 23:09:56 EST 1998


Again, I've cleared away some of the clutter (a very primitive form of
obscurantism).  Someone documents that "enhancing antibody" is indeed a
widely used term in the scientific literature. 

Obscuring the point:
(1) "John Burgin" inserts his response IN THE MIDDLE OF A CITATION OF A
SPECIFIC ARTICLE (making it dificult to spot; v. infra).
(2) He demands to know what this has to do with the "AIDS=HIV issue",
conveniently ignoring the fact that the person supplying this citation
and many others (I snipped most) specifically said he was citing only
articles not dealing with that issue because they might be less
controversial (i.e. making it easier for "jb" to accept the idea tht
this is a legitimate term, in widespread use).

The point is, his bluff was called, he was shown to be just plain
wrong, and he does not have the grace to admit it.

(n.b.: in another reply to this diatribe against the ignorant
charlatans who use this nonexistent term, a Medline search found 43 
articles using the term in the context of HIV...)

(key points of this embarassing exchange are excerpted below)

F. LeFever


In <3637b6bc.178714401 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>
johnburgin at worldnet.att.net writes: 


- - - - - - - (snip) - - - - - - - - - - - -

>>> 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.
>>

(ABOVE: JOHNBURGIN'S RIDICULE OF SOMEONE'S USE OF THE TERM "ENHANCING
ANTIBODIES)

(BELOW, ONE OF THE RESPONSES DOCUMENTING ITS WIDESPREAD USE AND JB'S
INSERTION OF A MISLEADING REPLY IN THE MIDDLE OF A CITATION)


>>Just for you and your colleagues information:
>>
>>Neutralizing and enhancing activities of human respiratory syncytial
virus-specific
>>antibodies.
>Thank you, now please explain their role in the HIV=AIDS issue. jb
>>       Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. 1996 May;3(3):280-6.
>>       PMID: 8705669; UI: 96336082.
- - - - - - - -(snip) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

>>Enhancing antibody: a novel component of the immune response.
>>       Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1982 Jun;79(12):3828-32.
>>       PMID: 6179088; UI: 82247944.
>>
>>This ignores the extensive literature associated with HIV and
associated
>>retroviruses where much of the recent work on ehhancing antibodies
has been carried
>>out. However, I thought the references to other fields of research
might be less
>>controversial.
>>
>>Andrew Walley
>>
>




More information about the Immuno mailing list