On 29 Sep 1998 21:06:31 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
Hogan) wrote:
>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
>>Hogan) wrote:
>>>>>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
>>>>Hogan) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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
>>>>>is outrageous.
>>>>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?
Yes or no, dummy. jb
>>Carlton
>>>>>>Carlton
>>>>>>>
