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

[johnburgin at worldnet.att.net]

On Thu, 29 Oct 1998 23:37:14 -0800, "Charles P. McCarthy, P.M.D.
(Hon)" <Pandoc at jps.net> wrote:

>johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>> Marnix, Marnix, Marnix.  What have I been shown wrong for?  You still,
>> after all this time haven't explained why we, the medical
>> profession(physicians, dentists, nurses, PA's, laboratory technicians,
>> etc-except you, knothead) depend upon an explanation for immunity upon
>> antibody formation, in general if that makes you feel any better, and
>> HIV does not produce an effective antigen that results in the body
>> producing an effective antibody complex to respond to the alien
>> entity.  The only excuse you and your asshole buddies keep using is
>> mutation.  I'll tell you what's mutating, your explanation.  Keep it
>> up, it gets better and better.  Enhancing antibodies, enchanting
>> antibodies, exquisite antibodies, call them what you will, it's still
>> b.s.  Please answer at least one of my questions without a sarcastic
>> nihilistic comment, what will the antibody status be for an individual
>> "immunized" against the HIV retrovirus?  End of story.  
>
>Actually John,
>
>It's just the beginning.
>
>Burton and the boys showed dendritic cells passing
>virus to T-cells in vitro even in the presence of
>excess neutralizing antibody.  It produced infective
>progeny.
>
>Single amino acid mutations in viral glycoprotein
>produce viral escape.
>
>Apototic debris containing viral DNA escapes
>macrophage destruction and produces infectious
>virions within phagocytes.
>
>There is no "good" immunological response to HIV.
>
>You must defeat the fundamental pathological determinant.
>
>PANDOC
Answer my question.  What will the serologic status be of a person
immunized against HIV(you pick the strain).  Don't be evasive.  jb