I've tried to clear away some of the clutter. "John Burgin" ridiculed
the terrm "enhancing antibodies" as unheard of, claimed it could not be
found in a Medline search. Bosch easily found it (400 or so articles
used it in title or abstract, and about 10% of these did so in the
context of AIDS).
Whereupon "John Burgin" challenges him ("big boy") to show him some
"sites". Is it just a matter of mis-spelling, or is he really so naive
as to think one goes to Medline to find websites? If he means "cites"
(as a vulgar abbreviation for "citations"), why doesn't he ask how to
do the Medline search properly and read a few of the articles cited?
F. LeFever
(v. infra)
In <36367faa.99068159 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.
>>>>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
>>>
