In article <36114369.663373706 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
<johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On 28 Sep 1998 16:39:26 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>>>In article <360c01bb.318827338 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>On 25 Sep 1998 20:47:08 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>>>>>>>>>>>One more comment: If you are in fact a dentist, and believe that
>>>>presence of antibodies means you have conquered an infection
>>>>(counter examples: syphilis, herpes, hepatitis and most damningly
>>>>leishmaniasis, leprosy and schistomasiasis, where higher antibody
>>>>titers are prognostic for WORSE clinical outcome) then I am very concerned
>>>>for your patients. Such staggering ignorance in a medical professional
>>>now who's guilty of handwaving!jb
>>>>Simple yes/no question: do you believe that the presence of pathogen-binding
>>antibodies automatically mean that the pathogen has been "conquered"
>>by the host?
>If you'll answer with a simple yes or no to the question that i have,
>I'll do the same for you. Has or has not the AIDS establishment
>focused on the lack of immune protection from an HIV positive status
>been determined by the conclusion that these HIV antibodies are
>"non-neutralizing" thus exempt from the rule of protection? Jb
Handwaving. You posted that a positive antibody response means you
have cleared an infection.Do you, or do you not believe that?